2nd Job

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog

rudder
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2260
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by rudder »

When ICAO and the US DOT amended maximum certificate age to 65, the age 60 BFOR argument in Canada for airline pilots was dead.

Having this historical debate again is like clinging to a non-COVID career progression path. It happened. Get over it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Raymond Hall »

rudder wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:53 am When ICAO and the US DOT amended maximum certificate age to 65, the age 60 BFOR argument in Canada for airline pilots was dead.
100% correct, except for the fact, as Rockie mentioned, that it still applies to Air Canada pilots at age 65. No tribunal or court is going to force an employer to employ pilots that can't operate over 85% of the flights by reason of the fact that those flights pass into, out of, or through USA airspace.

Ironically, prior to the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption, effective December 15, 2012, both Air Canada and ACPA filed, argued and appealed BFOR cases before the Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, costing hundreds of hours of litigation and tens of thousands of dollars for all parties in lawyers' fees and court costs.

Air Canada's argument was that it simply could not manage its scheduling given the restriction of the "Over-Under" rule. It lost that argument at the Tribunal in both hearings. ACPA argued that to repeal mandatory retirement would impose undue hardship on the junior pilots held back as a result of the repeal. That BFOR claim was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

Then, after spending so much effort pursuing those arguments in litigation, after the exemption was repealed, both Air Canada and ACPA simply ignored their prior positions and continued flying. Air Canada instead imposed a bidding restriction, precluding F/Os from operating wide-body aircraft while the Over-Under provision was still in effect. That led to more litigation that was eventually resolved long after the restriction was no longer imposed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
garfield
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:35 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by garfield »

Check First Air or Air Yukon i'm pretty sure they still have captains over 70 flying. Nobody should force you to stop flying at X age if you want to continue and are still fit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Raymond Hall »

garfield wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:09 pm Check First Air or Air Yukon i'm pretty sure they still have captains over 70 flying. Nobody should force you to stop flying at X age if you want to continue and are still fit.
There are many Canadian airlines that operate entirely within domestica airspace, especially in the North. Of course they are all subject to the present Canadian law, and without a bona fide occupational requirement related to USA airspace, they cannot deny employment on the basis of age to any pilot who is properly licensed by Transport Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Bede »

Raymond Hall wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:38 pm
Bede wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:14 am ...I can't figure out where in the solicitor-client relationship you sit. Are you the solicitor or a party with a law degree who represents others by virtue of your law degree? Honestly, I worry about a costs award against you personally. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I follow some of these claims and shake my head. I can't see an objective lawyer carrying this fight on as long as you have.
A lawyer doesn't have to be paid or even have a formal retainer agreement in order to be counsel of record for a party, or to be deemed to be in a solicitor-client relationship. The professional Code of Conduct, which is public and available for viewing on all of the provincial Law Societies' web sites is explicit in that regard. Holding oneself out as representing a client is sufficient, and certainly, filing proceedings on behalf of a litigant seals the relationship, regardless of retainer.

Costs are awarded against parties, not against counsel. There are situations where the Court may order costs against a lawyer personally, but those circumstances require some form of egregious behavior on the part of the lawyer, such as wilful contempt of court. And even in those circumstances, the awarding of costs against a counsel personally is exceptional.

You might have a point regarding any objective lawyer continuing to act on this issue as long as I have. Candidly I can state that my loving spouse shares the same sentiment.
Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not accusing you of any unethical conduct or in providing anything other than vigorous advocacy to your clients. From my limited experience (a handful of small claims court actions and traffic ticket defenses for family/friends*), the nuts and bolts of the legal profession is quite easy provided you have reasonable communication skills and a dedication to understanding the law and the process. However, I would never represent myself knowing what I know now, despite my love of DIY-everything. A lawyer's greatest contribution to their client is, IMO, their ability to offer their unbiased opinion. That's very difficult to do when there's an emotional investment in the cause or the client.

* Done many years ago, for free, for fun. Never lost.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TT1900
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 8:19 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by TT1900 »

Raymond Hall wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:16 am
'97 Tercel wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:31 pm IMO mandatory retirement isn't discriminatory - a pilot's age is an occupational qualification, once you hit a certain number you're not qualified anymore.
Nice idea, but the law and science are against you.

Presently, in Canada, there is no mandatory retirement age for pilots, or for any other occupation, save for certain exceptions, provided by statute, such as the military.
Even the military, though not legally obligated to do so, has seen the light and is allowing pilots to extend beyond 60 provided they meet the medical & fitness standards. Rightly so. If someone can safely and effectively perform a job they should not be tossed based on age.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Inverted2
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2387
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Ontario

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Inverted2 »

Absolutely nothing wrong with flying to 65 and after that do it privately or corporate till you wish. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There’s no perfect age number that will make everyone happy. My goal is to be out of the airlines by 60 if finances allow. I do want to move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of my career. Many of us have spent more than our fair share at the bottom while we see our more senior colleagues enjoy a better schedule as well they benefited from age 60 retirements in the past.

The Coronavirus is going to set our career advancement back by several years and force many out of the profession permanently.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Raymond Hall »

Bede wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:48 pm Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not accusing you of any unethical conduct or in providing anything other than vigorous advocacy to your clients. ... A lawyer's greatest contribution to their client is, IMO, their ability to offer their unbiased opinion. That's very difficult to do when there's an emotional investment in the cause or the client.
Understood and agreed. The solicitor-client relationship begins with the first contact. It is critical that the lawyer be honest not only with the client but with himself or herself, and keep a clear separation between the client's cause and the lawyer's personal interest or bias. That's why some lawyers will choose to represent clients like Paul Bernardo, Charles Manson, or Clifford Olson. It's not about the lawyer—it's about the law.

From the outset of the mandatory retirement proceedings I maintained two clear arguments on behalf of my clients. First, the retirement policy did not meet the requirements of the statutory exemption. Second, it was in both Air Canada's and ACPA's interest to adapt to the impending repeal as early as possible, both economically and ethically. Fourteen years later, I can't say that I have been persuaded that those arguments did not have substantial merit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Rockie »

Inverted2 wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:23 pm Absolutely nothing wrong with flying to 65 and after that do it privately or corporate till you wish. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There’s no perfect age number that will make everyone happy. My goal is to be out of the airlines by 60 if finances allow. I do want to move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of my career. Many of us have spent more than our fair share at the bottom while we see our more senior colleagues enjoy a better schedule as well they benefited from age 60 retirements in the past.

The Coronavirus is going to set our career advancement back by several years and force many out of the profession permanently.
You should re-read what you just wrote. Your stated goal is to retire at 60, move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of your career. For that to happen people above you need to leave, and you are only willing to tolerate their presence on the list until they turn 65. When someone reaches that age you want them gone and you don’t care if they’re still capable of doing their job or not.

You want retirement based on age and that is now illegal. You’ll understand why it’s illegal the first time someone suggests you’re too old to do something you know you can still do better than them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Inverted2
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2387
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Ontario

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Inverted2 »

I ain’t re reading anything. :lol:

A college kid recently asked me when I’m retiring and I’m only 42. I felt so triggered. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1677
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by shimmydampner »

Sharklasers wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:38 pm A lot of those gentlemen stayed past 60 in order to enjoy those 5 years at the front of the trough and max out their pensions
...
You don’t see too many pilots crying in their soup? They CONSTANTLY bitch about it
'Bitch' is certainly the operative word here. Since when does anyone owe it to their coworkers to retire early so that someone else can take the job/salary/benefits they worked (and wish to continue working) for? As if you would, out of pure altruism, leave >$1mil on the table for the good of some snot nosed millennial you don't know? Get real. So you're life isn't exactly as gravy as you want it to be right this very minute? Boo effin' hoo. Maybe it has something to do with that wasted time and effort "CONSTANTLY" bitching about how other people's moderate success is hampering your own.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sharklasers
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Sharklasers »

shimmydampner wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:03 pm
Sharklasers wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:38 pm A lot of those gentlemen stayed past 60 in order to enjoy those 5 years at the front of the trough and max out their pensions
...
You don’t see too many pilots crying in their soup? They CONSTANTLY bitch about it
'Bitch' is certainly the operative word here. Since when does anyone owe it to their coworkers to retire early so that someone else can take the job/salary/benefits they worked (and wish to continue working) for? As if you would, out of pure altruism, leave >$1mil on the table for the good of some snot nosed millennial you don't know? Get real. So you're life isn't exactly as gravy as you want it to be right this very minute? Boo effin' hoo. Maybe it has something to do with that wasted time and effort "CONSTANTLY" bitching about how other people's moderate success is hampering your own.
Millennial? LOL.
I’m am referencing the 50 year olds who went through 9/11, SARS, CCAA and then the rules changed and they got to enjoy an extra 5 years in stasis because the rules changed right when they were traditionally supposed to move up to the big seat.
Right or wrong I think those people have earned the right to gripe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Rockie »

“Stasis”? You must be joking. We all enjoyed rapid growth and advancement thanks to the most successful period in this airlines’ history.

But you are correct, you have a right to gripe about the end of age discrimination in Canada. Wonderful things those rights.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by '97 Tercel »

The end of age discrimination? For who?

When can you exercise the privileges of an ATPL? When can you legally buy alcohol? When can you vote? etc etc

- Because it's not prudent to allow a 14 year old to vote, just like it's not prudent to put an 80 year old in charge of a passenger aircraft.


It's easy, but they still got it wrong because "guarding every right I think I may have, at any cost" is the narrative of the day right now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Rockie »

'97 Tercel wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:28 pm The end of age discrimination? For who?
For you, which you will one day belatedly realize...maybe. By the time you’re near retirement you’re as likely to take the lack of age discrimination completely for granted and conveniently forget you were all for it as a thoughtless youngster. Just like the committee tasked with fighting the change who remarkably embraced it once it was done and they reached that age.

As for your underage examples, your parents probably explained the concepts of maturity and responsibility many times while you were growing up. Ask them to explain it again.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by '97 Tercel »

Rockie wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:05 pm
'97 Tercel wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:28 pm The end of age discrimination? For who?
For you, which you will one day belatedly realize...maybe. By the time you’re near retirement you’re as likely to take the lack of age discrimination completely for granted and conveniently forget you were all for it as a thoughtless youngster. Just like the committee tasked with fighting the change who remarkably embraced it once it was done and they reached that age.

As for your underage examples, your parents probably explained the concepts of maturity and responsibility many times while you were growing up. Ask them to explain it again.


So you have nothing really except to guess at my age. You can't have age discrimination for some and not for others.

We'll agree to disagree since "I'm guessing" you're fairly old and care most about that end of the demographic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Rockie »

'97 Tercel wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:48 pmWe'll agree to disagree since "I'm guessing" you're fairly old and care most about that end of the demographic.
One of your problems and the one most relevant to the issue of age based forced retirement is that you lack the imagination to see ever reaching that demographic yourself. When you do it’s going to come as a complete surprise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: 2nd Job

Post by '97 Tercel »

What?

Painful sentence to read
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8092
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: 2nd Job

Post by Rockie »

Try reading it out loud, or get someone to read it to you.

Out of curiosity I ran that post through the Flesch Reading Ease test and it scored 62.2

"70.0–60.0 / 8th & 9th grade / Plain English. / Easily understood by 13- to 15-year-old students."

The Flesch-Kincaid readability test scored it as a grade 9.6 reading level.

I swear I'm not making this up.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: 2nd Job

Post by bcflyer »

Raymond Hall wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:38 pm That is categorically incorrect. Air Canada and ACPA have both maintained that "the normal age of retirement" remains age 60. There is presently no penalty to the pension for retiring at age 60. There is only an option to stay. You can leave, with no penalty whatsoever, and no impact on your pension.
That is categorically incorrect. Those that will not have 25yrs of service by age 60 cannot retire without penalty at age 60. That privilege is now gone.
You can say whatever you want about rights etc. The fly-past 60 was nothing but a bunch of greedy bastards at the top, who got to their positions because those before them left at 60, deciding that they wanted more. It was greed. Pure and simple.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”