SOME AGE 60 HISTORY

[Dockjock]

This isn't a game to me, where we shake hands at the end and say Good Game. Did a word hurt your feelings? This is an embarrassment, a perversion of the entire rights issue that diminishes in my mind the entire concept, and violates the original intent of the charter to the extent that it's aim was probably to lift up groups who were previously unfairly disadvantaged due to racism and prejudice and so forth. 35-yr airline pilots who have a pension and travel benefits that extend into retirement- which they were eligible for while still young enough to enjoy them!- don't exactly fall into that group in my world, but hey, keep pretending that you were "fired." The rights issue is settled, but you deserve nothing and a penny more is a travesty.

[Understated]

This isn't a game to me, where we shake hands at the end and say Good Game..

Nor is it to us. We haven’t spent years and years of our time supporting our organizers and paying our legal counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to walk away from the conclusion of this because people such as yourself have failed invest any time to get the facts and to get your minds around what is at issue here. But just because it isn't a game is no reason not to treat those whose opinion differs from own in slanderous, demeaning terms.

This is an embarrassment, a perversion of the entire rights issue that diminishes in my mind the entire concept, and violates the original intent of the charter to the extent that it's aim was probably to lift up groups who were previously unfairly disadvantaged due to racism and prejudice and so forth. ]

Your view of the rights issue obviously differs from the view of the court.

The present case is not about the charter, it is about the basic human rights law that has been the law of the land for over 30 years. May I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself about the actual dispute instead of making erroneous assumptions and slandering those of us who base our opinions on fact and law, rather than on emotion?

35-yr airline pilots who have a pension and travel benefits that extend into retirement- which they were eligible for while still young enough to enjoy them!- don't exactly fall into that group in my world, but hey, keep pretending that you were "fired." The rights issue is settled, but you deserve nothing and a penny more is a travesty.

The rights issue is not settled, at least, not yet. That is why we are in court. And you may very well be surprised how your view of "what we deserve" will differ from the view of the court and the tribunal as to the damages actually payable by you and your union, once the rights issue is finally settled.

[altiplano]

Ahh, the dreaded after-midnight flame post. I'm guessing scotch?

Anyway, take a week off to think about why your post a) wasn't nice and b) violated forum rules and c) really, really wasn't nice.

//Sulako

[Rockie]

You wanna calm down and rethink that Altiplano?

[Dockjock]

Frankly I don't care what the courts say. Like I said, you've co-opted an argument for personal monetary gain that was supposed to protect victims of unfair, immoral and unjust treatment. Retirement under the terms of the previous arrangement were nothing if not fair, in my view. You were provided for in the top quartile of incomes by a very good pension, retained benefits with priority ahead of active employees, and had you chosen to, been honoured by your coworkers. Heck they roll the fire trucks out and salute you! "Fired," please.

The courts are not always right but they are the authority, so the decision is what it is. Gay marriage is still illegal in many jurisdictions, and women don't vote everywhere. Slavery is legal. Racism is still entrenched in societies around the world. Canadian courts aren't perfect either. You had to retire, and now want money and may even get it from a HUMAN RIGHTS claim. Embarrassment.

[Rockie]

You had to retire, and now want money and may even get it from a HUMAN RIGHTS claim. Embarrassment.

Yes it is embarrassing but not for the reason you think. We did it to ourselves and finally had to be saved from ourselves by the federal government in 2012. If they hadn't changed the law there would have been 2 more years of forced retirements we would be on the hook for and the number would have been much higher than 200. I can't help but wonder what the magic number would have been where we started to reconsider the tenability of our position. 300? 400? 500? Where would we have said "whoa, we better stop what we're doing here because it only seems to be getting worse"?

I'm curious what you personally hoped would happen when you supported the union's position Dockjock. Did you hope that ACPA could preserve mandatory age based retirement at Air Canada or were you just hoping to delay the change as long as possible?

[Understated]

Frankly I don't care what the courts say. Like I said, you've co-opted an argument for personal monetary gain that was supposed to protect victims of unfair, immoral and unjust treatment. Retirement under the terms of the previous arrangement were nothing if not fair, in my view.

So let me understand your position, then. Retirement under the previous arrangement was fair. What about under the present arrangements? ACPA signed the present LOU allowing pilots to stay until age 65. Is that arrangement fair, in your view?

Is it fair that even though pilots who turned 60 in December 2012 can now stay until 65, those who turned 60 in November 2012 couldn't? After all, we were all under the same contract when hired.

Why do you think the union agreed to age 65 as of December 2012? Because it was fair?

No. It agreed because to do otherwise was illegal, once the exemption was repealed. Just like it was illegal if the conditions of the exemption were not met.

One more question...

How do you feel about those who you appointed to the age 60 Committee, whose job it was to oppose the change in age, now taking advantage of the increase in age and staying on after they turn 60, after having successfully punted those ahead off the top of the seniority list? Is it "fair" to you that they argued one thing then do exactly what they opposed, when it comes to their turn stand by their principles?

[Understated]

Frankly I don't care what the courts say.

You and a majority of ACPA members, evidently. Which goes a long way to explaining why ACPA is in the situation that it presently finds itself.

Respect for the law is fundamental to our society. Disrespect for the law has its consequences. Those who consciously choose to disregard the law should not be surprised or indignant when they are held to account.

[dukepoint]

This bleeting of sheep is getting tiring. "I was fired"..... "I was terminated"......"happy birthday, you're fired"..... The complaints are the same, the complainers are the same, the responses are the same.

Why don't you guys claiming discrimination, while comparing your plight to Jews, equal rights for women and Gays, get a life, enjoy retirement and stop trying to convince the world of this joke of a "tragic injustice" that's been apparently forced upon you. You are not even in the same ballpark as Jews, Gays or Women.... that you claim so belittles their plight in everyones eyes. Realize that you are, for the most part, privileged, upper-middle class Caucasian males that will not ever garner true public sympathy, even remotely approaching that of those truely deserving such. Remember this is Canada, not 1960's South Africa.

Realize that you had your moment in the sun, just like every pilot that retired at their "mutually agreed upon" date. Realize that you "got what you agreed by contract to get", like those thousands of pilots who retired at 60, like they mutually agreed to do, before you. Put your anger aside, and move on while you can still swing a golf club.

A good start would be to stop wasting so much of the 5 or 10 or 15 years you have left alive in this world typing long paragraphs on this Forum trying to convince those here who will never be convinced.

Tough words, but the "unjust termination" arguement has always been a transparent, weak excuse for a cash grab.

DP.

[Understated]

A good start would be to stop wasting so much of the 5 or 10 or 15 years you have left alive in this world typing long paragraphs on this Forum...

A good start for you would be to answer a few of the questions posed above.

We don't need to persuade anyone of anything here, as if that were possible in any event. This obviously isn't where the real engagement takes place, anyway. The issues are playing out where they should, in the ongoing legal proceedings.

This Forum has done and still could provide a useful source of factual information and considered opinion, if the participants such as yourself would engage in meaningful discussions, instead of misstating the facts and slamming others for what you perceive to be solely their pecuniary motivations.

So, how about some answers?

[Rockie]

Over the years I have posed many specific questions to people on this forum and elsewhere designed to get people to actually think about their position - those questions are almost never answered and if you scroll up a bit you will see the latest attempt, unanswered of course

The reason they go unanswered is because people are more comfortable with their anger at the perceived architects of their slowed advancement up the seniority ladder than they are in actually engaging in critical thinking. If critical thinking we're the priority amongst our union and pilot group this issue would have been resolved years ago to the benefit of all. Instead, well - it's not.

[777longhaul]

Dukepoint (DP)

You signed on at AC, when the age was 60. So.....I assume you will take your own wise advise, and retire at 60, REGARDLESS of what the revised age is? Please let us all know, that you are willing to go at 60, just like the contract said, when you joined, and you so adamantly have expressed to the FP60 Coalition.

Your answer is?

[Norwegianwood]

Dukepoint (DP)

You signed on at AC, when the age was 60. So.....I assume you will take your own wise advise, and retire at 60, REGARDLESS of what the revised age is? Please let us all know, that you are willing to go at 60, just like the contract said, when you joined, and you so adamantly have expressed to the FP60 Coalition.

Your answer is?

Just like all the other pilots that have gone past the magic # of 60 since the magic day in Dec 2012 that "signed on" prior to that date........

I think not, you see there is a double standard, yours and mine and those still on the property like DP want his cake and for everybody else to go pound sand!

Let the courts decide 4 weeks from now!

NW

p.s. DP I wish you sleep filled nights and a clear conscience

[dukepoint]

Dukepoint (DP)

You signed on at AC, when the age was 60. So.....I assume you will take your own wise advise, and retire at 60, REGARDLESS of what the revised age is? Please let us all know, that you are willing to go at 60, just like the contract said, when you joined, and you so adamantly have expressed to the FP60 Coalition.

Your answer is?

Greed moved the goalposts.

I begrudge no one for conducting career damage control at this point and staying longer to make up for stagnation caused by greed. Do you???

We have pilots on the property now with over 40 years of pensionable service (max required is 35) making near $300k. Hundreds of young pilots with mortgages and young children to provide for, making $40-$60k are patiently waiting for these fine "gentlemen" to get their stuffed, cash-bloated faces out of the trough like they agreed to do so long ago.

Explain the "justice" of all this to me........ pilots hired under the age 60 retirement agreement languish near poverty in expensive cities like Vancouver and Toronto picking up OT at Christmas away from their children just to make ends meet, waiting. Hundreds of young lives are on hold right now to accomodate those senior folk instilled with a twisted sense of selfrightousness.

For the record, I'm doing fine in the middle of the pack, never fighting for or against. I'm not the one who must explain or justify anything. That's your task.

Yes, I still plan to retire at 60. I agreed to do so when I was hired because I understood that following the rules made seniority progression work for everyone. This was once a system designed to be fair to everyone. What is it now?

DP.


FWIW
If the Flypast60 argument was legitimate and truly "just" to its core, there would be little speculation as to the result, and I would not be against it in any form. Few would. But because of its inherent weakness, and transparency (obvious cash grab), the case is not clear cut. Because the Justice system is set up to correct true injustice, and the Judges do not earn their positions with stupidity, any Judge worth his salt will see through this ruse ....... I have very little worry.

Wrap yourselves tightly in your false "cloak of discrimination", and try not to belittle the concept of "real, legitimate discrimination" too much along the way.

DP out.

[Rockie]

Greed moved the goalposts.

No, the federal government did. And they did it many years later than the rest of the country did and WAY past when they should have.

Yes, I still plan to retire at 60. I agreed to do so when I was hired because I understood that following the rules made seniority progression work for everyone

Could you please post a picture of what you signed way back when actually agreeing to retire at 60?

[Raymond Hall]

Wrap yourselves tightly in your false "cloak of discrimination", and try not to belittle the concept of "real, legitimate discrimination" too much along the way.

Speaking for myself only, I can assure you that I have no misunderstanding of the true issues at stake here, nor am I attempting to wrap myself in any "cloak of discrimination." The issue is now and always has been the legality of the terminations of employment, my own included.

Similarly, I do not have any misapprehension of how often and how extensive the legal issues have been misinterpreted by others, such as yourself, who appear to impute some unfounded moral imperative into the mix, while at the same time refusing to consider that their incorrect assumptions with respect to the facts are blinding their perception.

We are now less than three weeks away from the Federal Court of Appeal hearing date (January 20th). May I suggest that you would do well to set aside the slander and vitriol for a little while and spend some time educating yourself about the real facts and issues in dispute, in order that you may possibly begin understand the very real scenario about to unfold before you?

This Forum is a very good place to start, as almost a decade of facts and statements is available in the archived discussions.

[MackTheKnife]

This bleeting of sheep is getting tiring. "I was fired"..... "I was terminated"......"happy birthday, you're fired"..... The complaints are the same, the complainers are the same, the responses are the same. "



"Tough words, but the "unjust termination" arguement has always been a transparent, weak excuse for a cash grab. "

DP.

Ever notice how some people seem to be stuck in an endless bog of ignorance? It matters not that others correct them or offer more intelligent insight into the conversation. With their air of supposed superiority, they waltz around spouting all sorts of drivel, none of which is relevant or backed up by facts.

It doesn’t matter what the conversation is about, they have an opinion and its right dammit!!! Just ask them.



MTK

[dukepoint]

Thanks for stepping in Ray. I'm sure you'll do fine financially regarding the judgement either way. The next group looking to squeeze a little more from the junior membership will be along shortly with cash in hand seeking guidance. You'll be busy, and well compensated for some time to come.

For all others, let the Courts decide. Your case is weak. If you win, so be it; we must all follow the rules of the land. As a laymen, I clearly see carefully inserted comments like "wrongful termination" "fired" "forced resignation" "wrongful dismissal" used to "lace" and falsely dress your arguement , making it appear far more than it is. Whatever you or I think, or say, Judges are not naive; they will strip it down and will see the claim for exactly what it is, and no more. Good luck.

DP.

[Morry Bund]

Your case is weak. If you win, so be it; we must all follow the rules of the land. As a laymen, I clearly see carefully inserted comments like "wrongful termination" "fired" "forced resignation" "wrongful dismissal" used to "lace" and falsely dress your arguement , making it appear far more than it is. Whatever you or I think, or say, Judges are not naive; they will strip it down and will see the claim for exactly what it is, and no more.

To which case are you referring? Certainly, not the case before the court of appeal. Perhaps the court of public opinion?

From your bland generalizations and from your refusal to address the most fundamental questions posed to you above regarding your allegations, you appear to have little or no understanding whatsoever of the legal issues actually in dispute.

There is no legal question before the courts involving the broad general concepts that you seem to believe are there, such as fairness and equity. Wrong issue, wrong court.

The judges are required to determine the issues before them, which, quite frankly, sir, you refuse to recognize, let alone address.

You are correct, however, in stating that the judges are not naïve. They will assess the actual legal issues properly before them. Unfortunately for you, those issues don't include any of issues that are at the forefront of your perspective.

Maybe you will be interested in understanding the issues, after the decision is rendered and the potential liability to you starts to sink into your consciousness. As one distinguished entrepreneur once stated, "There are three types of people in the world...those that watch things happen, those that make things happen, and those who wonder what happened." In which category do you consider yourself to be positioned?

[777longhaul]

DP

Raymond has not taken any money from the members of the FP60 Coalition in the form of fees, from any of us.

He has worked endlessly on this important issue. He is not, in this to make money. Raymond has always stayed the course, and has tirelessly gone to court, to get the proper legal result for those that were illegally age discriminated against, by AC and acpa.

Don't you find it a little bit ironic, that AC accepted all the other union's members, back to full employment, yet, they refused to do that for the pilots? How do you do that and still state that they are not discriminating against the aprx. 200 pilots at AC , based only on age? (please read the CHRC submissions, they have their own lawyers, it is not Raymonds work.)

How is it, that Jazz pilots, who are part of the parent company, (AC) were already flying to age 65, yet the AC mainline pilots, were told that they can not continue employment? Does that even make legal sense to you?

ONLY AC..... in all of Canada, forced retired their pilots. That is not normal. If the courts, (FCA) upholds the BFOR argument for acpa, (AC lost it, and the Normal Age of Retirement, also) then, due to acpa's demands, all pilots at AC will have to be terminated at age 60. If the BFOR stands, and it is applied to the FP60 Coalition, then it will be applied to every pilot at AC. That means, every pilot over 60, at AC today, will have to be terminated immediately. They will be flying illegally. A BFOR law, applied, is not a moving target. It is either a BFOR, or it is not. Do you think that AC is going to operate its fleet, with pilots over 60, who are not legally entitled to do so? What about insurance, public awareness, and a truck load of other legal issues? Imagine, the training costs, and other financial issues, etc.

NONE of the other union's lawyers, advised the union management, to fight the age discrimination issue, they all stated that you can not win this issue, as it is clearly illegal. If all the other lawyers, and union managements, have seen the light of day, why, has acpa not? acpa is the only union, that refused, to accept, aprx. 200 grieveance applications from it's due's paying members, in good standing. acpa has rolled the dice, opposite, to what every other union at AC did. acpa carries the sole responsibility, for continuing the court battles, and if.....the FP60 Coalition wins, acpa will have to take FULL ownership, of what ever comes of that court ruling.

Never ever confuse the Federal Government changing the age discrimination issue, with the FP60 Coalition.

We are in court, trying to get what clearly, is an illegal age only, forced termination of employment, rectified.

acpa insists, no matter what the costs, that it is not breaking the law. The FCA on Jan. 20 2015 will decide. It is a special sitting of the 3 judges, with one day set for the hearings from all the parties, AC, acpa, FP60 Coalition, and the CHRC.