AVCANADA

It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:32 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous 15 6 7 8 9 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:53 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Simply amazing. After getting squashed by the truck pilots still want to blame the people who told them it was coming and they should step out of the way. Professional victims.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:58 am
Posts: 40
Gents,

As has been clearly stated, Age discrimination is no longer allowed!

As history has shown, as time goes on, different types of discrimination have been challenged from slavery to gender to, now... ageism. When new laws create change to address this discrimination; usually there is the expectation of immediate compliance to uphold the changes.

No one here is going to persuade those of the other side of the argument to change their opinion. The last dozen years bear that out! The issue is before the legal system to determine if this group of pilots were discriminated against and are due compensation. At glacial speed the legal system is working towards deciding that issue.

Lets all agree to disagree. Now a pilot can stay in command to age 65 for now. Is 65 discrimination to be forced out of the Captains chair? I don't know. I have recently hit the big 60 and am personally delaying my fellow pilots promotions. Will I still be here at 65; no! It is my choice.

By the way Ray, I can not recall a single pairing in the last 5-7 years where my fellow aviators have not asked when I will exit the door! It is impossible to think of someone doing that in days of old. The newer generation being promoted to a 320 captain in about 1/3 the time that you and I took, makes not the slightest difference in their desire for anyone senior to be gone. There is not a shred of the old Airline or unity to be seen anymore. Everyone for themselves is the new order!

Soon the Courts will bring this case to some form of conclusion and either way there will be many upset. It is the nature of human life! True justice is not found down here as it is open to human (legal) interpretation.

I hope that day of decision comes sooner, than later !!!!!



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Posts: 399
Not meant to be a cheap shot.
Raymond told me to "piss off", so I guess I touched a nerve. He has proven that there was case law dating decades back regarding retirement age issues. Raymond was a (and is) a lawyer, so I would assume that he would have been aware of said case law. Raymond also had the means, ability and forum to enact change as ACPA's MEC chair. It seems that nothing was pushed for, nor changed under his leadership of ACPA. He was also benefiting from having retirements at 60......
Raymond is uniquely qualified to answer why, under his leadership, ACPA never entered into an agreement with AC with regard to retirement age changes. He was driving the ACPA truck.
I am just curious.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:26 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
tailgunner wrote:
Raymond also had the means, ability and forum to enact change as ACPA's MEC chair. It seems that nothing was pushed for, nor changed under his leadership of ACPA. He was also benefiting from having retirements at 60...... Raymond is uniquely qualified to answer why, under his leadership, ACPA never entered into an agreement with AC with regard to retirement age changes. He was driving the ACPA truck.

If you have read my earlier posts, you will recall that it is uncertain at what date age 60 was no longer the “normal age of retirement.” Sometime before 2006, in my view, and sometime after 1990. Remember, the Tribunal in 2007 based it on a statistical count, 50% plus 1. But that calculation or process was never applied to pilots before then. In the 1980’s when Ross Stevenson filed his challenge, virtually 100% of the pilots in the major airlines in Canada were forced to retire at age 60.

So this idea of what is “the normal age” never came up for discussion prior to George Vilven’s complaint, at least not at ACPA, for at least two reasons. Nobody, and I mean nobody raised the issue. The restriction wasn’t in the collective agreement, it was in the “plan text” of the pension plan. And none of the pilots, save for those on the Pension Committee, ever were provided a copy of the plan text. I know I wasn’t, even as MEC Chair.

The second reason that it never arose before the MEC was that the two years in which I was an elected representative were extremely tense and tumultuous. We were in critical negotiations and we received a 98% Strike Vote with 96% of the members voting. At three different times over the course of the summer of 2000, I had the required 72-hour Notice of Strike to the Minister of Labour sitting in the fax machine, waiting to hit the SEND button. It was that close.

Even after we concluded the collective agreement, Air Canada attempted to contract out a good portion of our flying to SkyService. That led to another two months of extremely tense confrontation, and I mean extremely tense! There were dozens of other issues before us at the time, especially the merger of Air Canada and Canadian pilot lists, through arbitration, the Mitchnick Award, the CIRB decision to overturn that award, and the subsequent final award by a different arbitrator. Conflict, conflict, conflict.

If you get the impression that there was conflict with external factors, let me suggest that the external conflict was nothing compared to the inner conflict evidenced in the division of the 14 MEC members, each with his own vested interest, a couple of whom opposed virtually every action that I took and every statement that I made to the media, even though I received magnificent support from the majority of the membership for my dedication and performance.

So mandatory retirement never came on the radar, period.

One other misconception regarding your post. As I stated earlier, the MEC Chair has ZERO authority to do anything other than call meetings. I believe that that is still the case. Even if I had thought about this issue, then, I had no authority to do anything about it. Period.

So what happened, years after I left the elected office? Well, to start with, one by one every Provincial jurisdiction in Canada repealed their mandatory retirement provisions. There was a monstrous public shift in attitude towards age discrimination in employment.

At the same time, every airline in Canada, save for Air Canada, had removed mandatory retirement restrictions from their pilot agreements. At least from 2002 onward, this meant two things. First, social policy with respect to age discrimination in employment no longer countenanced the practice. Second, the statistical balance that underpinned the formula for the “normal age of retirement” had obviously moved, bringing into question the legal validity of the AC-ACPA provision. That did not really come to the fore until 2005 to 2006, when Vilven’s complaint went to the Tribunal. For the first time since the 1980’s, Air Canada's pilot union was formally presented with this issue, anew.

So you can sit there now, look in hindsight through your periscope of history at one small speck of what was then a non-issue and lash out with all the vigour you want about woulda, coulda, shoulda, disregarding all of the image outside of your narrow historical lens, and impute all sorts of malfeasance. But before you do so, you should at least get some perspective.

Again, if you read my posts above, you will recall that I had nothing to do with the filing of the Vilven complaint (or the Neil Kelly complaint, for that matter). I arrived on the scene after the complaints had spent three years before the CHRC and were actually in litigation before the CHRT.

And, as I pointed out above, those two complaints, in 2005, formalized the issue of law that is still before the Tribunal and the courts, before I became involved. The legal dispute landscape was defined before I had anything to do with the issue. So my involvement was irrelevant to the description of the present issue. What I did was structure a support system to sustain the David vs. Goliath case on behalf of those who disagreed with their own union's support of the employer's position.

Look at it from this perspective. Both Air Canada and ACPA have spent millions of dollars, and I mean millions of dollars, on legal counsel fees to oppose the interests of these complainants. What single individual could possibly meet that challenge, financially? The union was spending these complainant's union dues to fight their own members' legal interests. That's where I drew the line and became involved, offering my expertise to offset the non-level playing field.

Why did I get involved? First, George Vilven asked me to assist him immediately after ACPA had changed its tune about representing him.

Second, I had spent two years appointed by the Manitoba government to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in the early 1990’s (the Commission is akin to a “Board of Directors.” We decided which complaints were sent to adjudication). As such, I was intimately familiar with the legislation, with the case law, and with the political implications of the social changes in progress.

I could see that, as I stated above, it was not “if” but “when,” particularly given the wording of the federal legislation, “normal age of retirement for individuals engaged in similar work,” and the case law in other industries that anointed the statistical assessment of the legality of the provision.

I could also see that there was a pot of gold waiting to be claimed. Each senior pilot retired generated at least 10 additional courses, at a cost of at least $40,000 per course, times 60 retirements per year. If only a few delayed their retirement, the foregone expense would have been in the millions of dollars per year. That had to be worth addressing by the union as one option to off-setting any negative impact on career progression, especially given the inevitability of the statutory amendment.

The rest, as they say, is history.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:30 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am
Posts: 138
''Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.[1] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[2] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[3]

Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices, and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, even in ones where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those believed to be current or past victims of discrimination—but have sometimes been called reverse discrimination. In the USA, a government policy known as affirmative action was instituted to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African-Americans and women, who have been subject to discrimination for a long time.[4]"



For those very few that will not or cannot understand what most of the posters write on the subject, here is the Wikipédia definition of discrimination. Do us, all the readers on this subject, a huge favour by using the aforementionned as a filter and/or frame to vet your writings.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:50 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am
Posts: 138
tailgunner wrote:
From your response we can gather that you brought no motions to end the age 60 retirement, while you were in an official office in ACPA. You sought NO legal advice on the age 60 issue while in a position of influence in ACPA. You did not make any motions to end the age 60 retirement provisions. Could it be that you were personally benefitting from having those ahead of you on the seniority list retire while you were still younger than 60? Could it be that you only started to think about the supposed unfairness of the age 60 retirement program after significant pilots ahead of you retired, and you were able to slide into their vacant seat on the 777?
You had the opportunity to officially direct ACPA on the age 60 file because YOU were the MEC chair! At the very least, you could have officially raised the issue, so as to have it on record. I estimate that in the years where you had your hand on the tiller of ACPA, a few hundred of your members retired, and you rose up the list. Your silence is deafening or was deafening.
How contrite of you to now claim to be a staunch defender of human rights vis a vis retirement, when you yourself did nothing while in control.
Good day.


This post, without a doubt, places you squarely in the camp of the problems vs the camp of solutions, joining Fanblade and a few others



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:09 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:08 am
Posts: 4
Fanblade wrote:
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.


acpa refusing to file a grievance in my name, is that not discriminatory ?

Sending hundreds of pilots out to pasture against their will, is that not a money grab as you so much like to insist upon ?

Excluding recent retirees ( 2007 ) from the dry lease money owed to them under the guise that all the other pilots would receive more free from income tax money, and that was some big bucks, that surely is not a money grab that you so loudly pontificate upon.

Negotiating away pension indexation for retirees in return for a pay raise, not a money grab ?

It is sure a great system when one can so easily take from one's coworker.


1970's aviator



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:22 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
Posts: 399
Raymond,
So let me get this straight. You sat on the Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal and you were intimately familiar with the case law, yet you did not see a need to raise the issue during your leadership tenure? The FP60 supporters have thrown a lot of accusations about negligence and ignorance towards ACPA, yet, you now admit that you had knowledge of the case law and did nothing about it. You easily could have had ACPA's legal team investigate the ramifications of your apparent knowledge.
As for your claim of having no ability to effect change as the MEC chair, that also seemingly does not hold a lot of water. The behind the scenes negotiating and influence are part of the MEC chairs role, whether stated or not. At the very least you could have raised it at a meeting and had it on the official record.
Can you at least admit that it wasn't on your radar because you were not in your final few years, and pilots through the seniority list were all benefiting from having a steady stream of retirements. As you gained the 777 CA position, and grew closer to 60 yourself, I can easily see why it you became acutely aware. You were now enjoying the top pay, and the top schedule and it is human nature to want to preserve that.
Cheers



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
Your logic is flawed and pointless tail gunner. If Raymond was able to set ACPA on the correct path out of self interest he would have done it before he retired so he could remain at the top spot. He's doing so now for zero compensation for the reasons he was good enough to explain to you, and at the expense of other paid work he could be doing. He will never be able to return to the top spot on the list yet he continues to do the work.

Trying to drag him into the muck just isn't going to work, nor does it help in any way to move the pilot group forward.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:19 am 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
tailgunner wrote:
Raymond,
So let me get this straight. You sat on the Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal and you were intimately familiar with the case law, yet you did not see a need to raise the issue during your leadership tenure?

There is no possible way to get you off this path of concluding that my involvement in this issue was motivated strictly by personal self-interest, is there?

When I was involved in negotiations we often summarized this attitude with the phrase, "Don't confuse me with the facts--my mind's made up!"

In the theory of logic, getting distracted from a real issue by a dominant overriding incidental issue leads to what is referred to as fallacious reasoning, which in turn almost invariably results in an adverse outcome. For example, an engine fire leading to a bus fault. If you view the issue strictly as an electrical problem, bad news.

In 2006, the legal issue of the validity of the mandatory retirement provision of the collective agreement became apparent for the first time when the Vilven complaint was referred from the Commission to the Tribunal. The Ross Stevenson case did not deal with the question of "normal age of retirement" (i.e. whether the conditional provision was satified). Rather, it was filed as a challenge to mandatory retirement in general under the federal Bill of Rights (pre-Charter).

Obviously, the legal issue before the Tribunal generated the incidental issue of impact on the compensation system. But the issue before the Tribunal had nothing to do with changing the compensation system. It had only to do with whether the statutory exemption was still valid. That was the only question that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to answer. Nothing else was relevant.

When I became involved, it became very clear to me that the statutory exemption to mandatory retirement was destined to be repealed, sooner or later. So regardless of what happened at the Tribunal, the second issue of how to deal with the end of mandatory retirement had to addressed. Any legislative change, be it in tax law, family law, or human rights law, affects different individuals differently. The key is to anticipate the change and to put one's organization in the best position to accommodate the change with a maximal upside and a minimal downside. That was where I was coming from.

Contrary to your assertion (quoted above), when I was MEC Chair, I was not intimately familiar with the human rights case law on age discrimination, as the issue simply did not arise, either then, or during my earlier tenure on the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (not Tribunal).

Suggesting that I should have raised the issue years before the issue was raised by someone else is akin to saying that airlines should have anticipated the 9/11 terrorists and should have provided more secure cockpit doors to prevent unauthorized entry. Easy to say after the issue becomes tragically evident. Absolutely not on anybody's radar in 2000. Ditto, mandatory retirement at Air Canada.

For one last time, the legal issue in dispute was before the Tribunal before I became involved. It was not my issue, and my participation after the fact did not change the nature of the issue that was in dispute then, or that is in dispute now. Nor did my participation affect the government's ultimate decision to repeal the exemption. So, ACPA was going to have to deal with it, sooner or later. My suggestion was that the union should be proactive and benefit from it, that it should not forego claiming its proper share of the ensuing windfall and not litigate against its own members against the inevitable. Instead, it did both.

Now, like I said to Fanblade above, we have your opinion, and it would appear that that opinion is not going to be enlightened by any facts to the contrary disclosed here. So, enough, already.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 pm
Posts: 103
I note that the Supreme Court has dismissed the Leave application. Pity. As I understand it, that is not a reflection on the merits of the issue before the courts, but rather, an indication of how important this issue is in relation to the national interest, given the limited number of legal issues that the SCC can decide in any given year.

Too bad. It would have been good to have this issue fleshed out in detail by that Court. Obviously, given the number, as I understand it, of other cases still before the CHRT, the final stone in this mortar has not yet been laid in place.



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:54 am 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 31
How long does it take for the FP60 group to update the website with the latest judicial failure?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 262
Lt. Daniel Kaffee wrote:
How long does it take for the FP60 group to update the website with the latest judicial failure?

Are you afraid that you might miss some earth-shaking development?



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:11 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:28 am
Posts: 143
So loss after loss after loss, including now from the SCC who has said it won't even hear the case (plus costs to AC/ACPA), and you're thinking it's not over. You're starting to sound like the Air Ontario gang.

Let it go Elsa, let it go.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:39 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 178
Read 787 Mechanic's statements again. And...he is not in this issue as a FP60 member.

AT AC, only the pilots were age discriminated against!

The other unions, backed their members, and had the Arbitrators decide what to do. THEY were re-instated, because, they were age discriminated against, JUST LIKE THE PILOTS.

So, you have several groups of employee's at AC, who are determined, by the Arbitrators, to be terminated based on their age, and then re-instated.

How do you have several employee union groups, at the same airline, who are re-instated, BUT not the pilots? How much logic, legal, realistic sense does that make?

Guess, if your part of the acpa ageism specialist's, you think that is normal.

How many acpa mec/lec/special committee members, are now flying past 60, and going for the max pension uplifts, and the other benefits, that they fought to remove from the FP60 group? Anyone see the total hypocrisy in that. Have a look at the acpa bulletins, see who signed and forced this issue, for their sole benefit, and see who is benefiting. What benefit got passed to the mid and junior pilots. NONE.

acpa, got lucky, but not by their skill, it was with AC backing only. (and back door deals and lobbying) Good thing, AC did not want to terminate the other employee's, Senior management, just wanted to discriminate against it's pilots, you know, the one's that help build the airline over all the years. These are the same pilots that saw all the various senior management, come and go, and everyone richer than when they started their little time at the helm.

This issue, is one of the most discriminating issues of modern times, by acpa, and AC.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:50 am
Posts: 35
Terminate......discriminate........how about "contractually agreed to retirement date"..........this argument is as old as the hills. Looking forward to this thread disappearing off page one.

Though I'm not helping things......

DP.



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 10:42 am
Posts: 161
Now that the age issue is slowing down, and Trans-gender is all the rage, may I suggest a new direction?


Attachments:
daily-afternoon-randomness-photos-3346.jpg
daily-afternoon-randomness-photos-3346.jpg [ 98.5 KiB | Viewed 3525 times ]
Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:36 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 80
777longhaul wrote:

This issue, is one of the most discriminating issues of modern times, by acpa, and AC.

I agree with you completely longhaul but would add that, when it comes to dealing with employees, for AC the corporation, it has been, is, and always will be, just business. But for many (the majority) of the pilots at ACPA, the discrimination (though they self-righteously dismissed it) was very directly targeted at their fellow pilots and with the specific objective of maintaining the status quo of forced retirement for as long as possible. No thought given by them towards anything other than how to delay the inevitable change looming on the horizon - for the sole benefit of themselves. The tactics used worked out well for them and I would be very surprised if ever there was any feeling other than smug satisfaction with the outcome of many hundreds of their fellow pilots being force-retired as the years rolled by.

Discrimination is just a word until one becomes its victim. If those who discriminated against their fellow pilots manage to get through the rest of their own lives without themselves becoming a victim of discrimination, then I suspect that they will never come to understand, let alone accept the harm they caused their “union” brothers and sisters. And if ever such an acknowledgement was to arouse their conscience, I doubt if ever it would be to a level that would cause them to give a damn.

All in all, a sad but revealing chapter of pilot union history in Canada, particularly in view of the fact that while ACPA, the union, had isolated and was putting the screws to a segment of its own membership, all of the other AC unions dealing with the same issue got it right.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:26 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Posts: 204
There is a very big difference between the pilots retirement age issue and those other unions at AC that "got it right." The difference is that with the other unions, the effect on junior members was holiday bidding, shift bidding, and so forth. Not their paycheck. The only people negatively in other impacted employee groups were the applicants off the street applying for positions that never came to be.

With the pilot group, due to the way our pay structure is calculated, total pilot payroll is (more or less) a "zero net sum" calculation. The "Fly past 60" group financially benefited only by taking food off the table of every pilot junior to them.

Due to industry demographics, the FP60 crowd enjoyed the "Golden Age" of professional aviation. They enjoyed careers progressions and standards of living not seen before them, and that will never be seen again. This was in part due to those that retired at 60 or less before them. Their cries of "discrimination" only reinforces how much they don't realize how easy they had it and their sense of entitlement. Methinks that the "Supreme's" quite probably thought similarly.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:22 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 80
sportingrifle: I lived during a part of the so-called “Golden Age” of professional aviation to which you suggest that you have some knowledge. I experienced first hand the “career progressions and standards of living not seen before …” and to which you seem to suggest that you have some familiarity. I was laid off for 33 months at age 35 with two kids and a mortgage. That wasn’t “Golden” I can assure you. Some of us who enjoyed that “Golden Age” had to spend up to 20 years just to have the seniority to hold a bottom narrow body left seat. How does that career progression compare with that of today? If you ever have the misfortune to be exposed to one or two or three or four or five or more mergers then you come and tell us “how easy” that is and what your own sense of entitlement might be in those circumstances. Now maybe you’ve had some of the experiences that those of us from the “Golden Age” have had, but I suspect not, so as the saying goes, “until you’ve walked a mile in our shoes” you might want to reconsider telling those of us from yesteryear what we do or don’t realize when it comes to a career in professional aviation.

As to the “cries of discrimination”, re-read the second paragraph in my posting above. Does it apply to you?

By the way, next year will be the 5th year since mandatory retirement was abolished and the predicted doom and gloom will be behind you. The retirement conveyor belt will resume full speed ahead. That 5 year hiatus could have been over in 2010 had cooler heads prevailed. It (the hiatus) was coming sooner or later but ACPA chose later and in doing so chose to preserve the interests of a majority at the expense of the interests of a minority. You can assign whatever word you want to describe that behavior.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:19 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Posts: 204
Ok Doug you may think that is not the golden age but compare to this.

For 7 years after I got my ATPL I couldn't even apply at an airline because I didn't have 20/30 uncorrected vision, despite TC issuing me an ATPL with my 20/70 vision. That feels like discrimination and I don't want to even think about the effect that had on my lifetime earnings.

20 years to the left seat of a narrowbody? If hired at 22 years old right out of collage with 200 hours like the majority were, languishing for 20 years as a DC-8 second officer enjoying exotic layovers and accumulating seniority seemed more like purgatory than hell. Finally a Capt. in your mid-'40's? Today an OTS new hire will require a university degree ($100K) and 2000 hours TT including glass/heavy/multi crew time. So the first twenty years of your career now are spent accumulating debt in University, on top of the flying school debt, and then cleaning puke out of an air amulance in Ft. somewhere or other for years just to be able to apply to AC! Closer to Hell in my mind. Lots of new hires are now in their late 30's, narrow body Capt. in their late 40's, and thew will NEVER see the left seat of a wide body. A position many of the FP60 crowd spent years, or even decades in! And they wanted more! If the retirement age had stayed at 60, I would have probably been able to enjoy a year or 2 in the left seat of a WB. That 5 year "hiatus" of pilots not retiring is what did it in for me. And during my career at AC, I too have had the pleasure of a merger, bankruptcy restructuring, and a (short) layoff.

The proof of the pudding is in lifetime career earnings. Without getting complex with inflation and interestcalculations, it is the benchmark of how "golden" a career is. I'll happily calculate and post mine if you will do the same.

At the end of the day, we will never agree but I was merely trying to point out that amongst the eaten young, the FP60 cries of discrimination sound pretty pathetic. I have a great job, a great life, and my health. I am not going to spend my days getting bitter about what could have been but I am sorry, I just couldn't read this thread any more and not reply.

I am sure we will agree to disagree and that's ok. Gotta run, off to work.

sportingrifle



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:09 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 31
Quote:
No thought given by them towards anything other than how to delay the inevitable change looming on the horizon - for the sole benefit of themselves. The tactics used worked out well for them and I would be very surprised if ever there was any feeling other than smug satisfaction with the outcome of many hundreds of their fellow pilots being force-retired as the years rolled by.

Really? How many of the FP60 group refused their new seniority number on January 1st every year?

"No sir, I can't accept that flying block, that promotion, that new equipment bid result...we forced people to retire who didn't want to and therefore Sir, I respectfully decline to accept that new seniority number, flying, promotion, equipment..."

Can't recall that happening. It seems like it's only discrimination when it suits one's purpose.

If any of the FP60 crowd did accept their rise in seniority, without registering their objections, then they are complicit in they same behavior they are so concerned about now.

The epiphany that is being played out now, is nothing but disingenuous.

When the FP60 crowd pledges to distribute any financial award they may receive to every living retired AC/CP pilot or the surviving widows of any AC/CP pilot, then maybe they can claim higher moral ground. Otherwise, it's all about personal gain.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7256
We earn the beating we get every contract. We deserve it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:18 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 178
So......discrimination is legal, and ok, and just business, and above all....gooood, when it is only about money?

The fact, that acpa and AC discriminated ONLY against the pilots, was totally ok in your books, as it was all about the money/promotions/vactions, that some....pilots would not get soon enough?

How can anyone, in their real mind, see only the pilots as being totally wrong. That discrimination is good, as long as it is the pilot on the seniority list that is near the top of the list? Only the pilot at the front of the line, (or just ahead of me/or on the other seniority page) SHOULD be discriminated against, that is just they way it should be.

The agents, the IAM, the Flight Attendants, and others, who are all paid according to their seniority, are to have total immunity from discrimination, by their OWN union, and THEIR OWN COMPANY, especially, senior management. This only comes from the top down.

Discriminate, Never.......except for the pilots!

This issue, played right into AC hands, the junior pilots lost their Pension, the Mid pilots just stood their, while, acpa, and AC quietly changed the contract without even contesting the fact that they TOTALLY Discriminated against a small group of pilots, (FP60) and then smiled at each others wisdom, and went about their business. That is so disgusting on so many levels.

Discrimination, is not about the money, and the facts are this, Raymond Hall tried many times to get acpa to agree to cost/income sharing, benefits gained, etc etc, from the pending wind fall that AC obtained by discrimination, against the only group of employee's in the company.

Life has a way of coming back around, and those of you who are so sure of this issue, might one day, have to admit that you were totally wrong. Discrimination is Discrimination, and the acpa ageist's and the senior management that structured the whole issue, are to blame. ALL the other airlines in Canada did it with out any problems. ONLY at AC you say.

So far.....Discrimination is working, well at acpa and AC, but not so much in the rest of the real world.

Now...off to the back of the bus, or how about going to the separate washrooms, sitting on the other side of the room, or not allowed in at all, and the list goes on and on, and, acpa and AC are squarely on that list of long ago, even today.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:21 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am
Posts: 1863
Location: Ontario
777longhaul wrote:
So......discrimination is legal, and ok, and just business, and above all....gooood, when it is only about money?

The fact, that acpa and AC discriminated ONLY against the pilots, was totally ok in your books, as it was all about the money/promotions/vactions, that some....pilots would not get soon enough?

How can anyone, in their real mind, see only the pilots as being totally wrong. That discrimination is good, as long as it is the pilot on the seniority list that is near the top of the list? Only the pilot at the front of the line, (or just ahead of me/or on the other seniority page) SHOULD be discriminated against, that is just they way it should be.

The agents, the IAM, the Flight Attendants, and others, who are all paid according to their seniority, are to have total immunity from discrimination, by their OWN union, and THEIR OWN COMPANY, especially, senior management. This only comes from the top down.



Discriminate, Never.......except for the pilots!

This issue, played right into AC hands, the junior pilots lost their Pension, the Mid pilots just stood their, while, acpa, and AC quietly changed the contract without even contesting the fact that they TOTALLY Discriminated against a small group of pilots, (FP60) and then smiled at each others wisdom, and went about their business. That is so disgusting on so many levels.

Discrimination, is not about the money, and the facts are this, Raymond Hall tried many times to get acpa to agree to cost/income sharing, benefits gained, etc etc, from the pending wind fall that AC obtained by discrimination, against the only group of employee's in the company.

Life has a way of coming back around, and those of you who are so sure of this issue, might one day, have to admit that you were totally wrong. Discrimination is Discrimination, and the acpa ageist's and the senior management that structured the whole issue, are to blame. ALL the other airlines in Canada did it with out any problems. ONLY at AC you say.

So far.....Discrimination is working, well at acpa and AC, but not so much in the rest of the real world.

Now...off to the back of the bus, or how about going to the separate washrooms, sitting on the other side of the room, or not allowed in at all, and the list goes on and on, and, acpa and AC are squarely on that list of long ago, even today.


There's more "I'm being discriminated against" and "poor me" in there than a blacklivesmatter protest. :mrgreen:



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous 15 6 7 8 9 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cleared Enroute, Exabot [Bot], Flyguy13, tsgas and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.