* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Topsites *Weather * Media Kit
It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:24 am



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
TheStig wrote:
When anyone posts anything on this forum which contravenes the only solution the FP60 group is hoping for they are quickly shouted down with a flurry of angry posts, I can see why so many don't even bother anymore.


FP60 folks have been beating their heads against the wall for years trying to get you guys to manage this situation and start thinking of ways to make it work to everyone's advantage. They've even suggested ideas that capitalize on the savings the company will get as a result and return it to the pilots in several different forms that immediately improve existing compensation and preserve and improve our ability to retire even earlier if one chooses to. You guys only come up with ways to discourage people from staying beyond 60 through alternate measures which are also discriminatory. How about thinking up stuff that isn't discriminatory and see how it's received?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:06 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 236
Let me ask you this?? What right now can't be swung into a discrimination?
We have a person who needs a cat to fly and a person who is allergic to cats.
Both on the same plane. Oh know it all..... His do we fix this?
It's not fair to tell one to wait, tell one not to bring a cat, tell one to not be allergic magically.
This bullshit society is trying to cater to everybody. Good luck.
This situation is the same as your god given right to occupy a seat.
Any restriction or caveat can be considered discriminatory.
Your brainless greed of fly till death do us part is funny. For them it's a right to keep earning money.
I want to advance and it's greed. I would like to get the same chances they did, and it's greed.
How would you fix it? I honestly have no idea.
But I think a guy wanting to stay around forever may have some insight.....
By the way I'm a 400 pound man, 7 feet tall with a fear of flying and need a camel to make me comfortable in a plane. But I'm deathly affraid of camels. How are you going to compensate me if I can't board your aircraft??????



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
the original tony wrote:
Let me ask you this?? What right now can't be swung into a discrimination?


What you and everybody else needs to be asking yourselves is; What is likely to (past 6 years), and has now (present) actually been declared discriminatory?

Govern your actions on that instead of railing at the skies over your perceived injustice.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:38 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 236
So you don't know. Excellent.
Just don't touch shit. Leave it as is. And god help you if you try to
take it away from me. Got it.
Everyone else pay for my missed planning.
Standing by for new orders.

Thanks



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:50 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
I'm not sure what it is you don't think I know, but here's what I do know:

1. Mandatory retirement based on age has been on the way out for many years in Canada, and now the federal government has finally caught up making it a clean sweep from coast to coast to coast.

2. Not only has the pilot group refused to look at the abundance of evidence pointing to #1 above, but even after the fact they still refuse to accept reality.

3. The Air Canada pilots have been crushed on this issue garnering absolutely none of the benefits for themselves (except for the fact they won't be discriminated against which they had nothing to do with) directly as a result of #2 above.

4. You personally will spend the rest of your career as a bitter and twisted man, at least until you turn 60 and realize that if you want to continue you can and it will be your choice, and your choice alone. Maybe then you'll look back and actually mean it when you say "thanks".



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 236
When I say thanks I "really" mean it.
Now, again, what was your non discriminatory solution??



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Posts: 132
the original tony wrote:
Let me ask you this?? What right now can't be swung into a discrimination?
This bullshit society is trying to cater to everybody. Good luck.


If I put my hand in a flame, my hand gets burnt. Fact.

If I violate the human rights law, I wind up in litigation, pay lawyers, and then pay damages. Fact.

If I do the same stupid thing over and over and over again, I pay lawyers fees, more lawyers fees and then still more lawyers fees. Then I pay damages and more damages and still more damages.

Should I be pee'd off and start crying that I live in a bullsh*t society because of my own inability to deal with reality? That's not the way I fly airplanes. That's not the way I run my life. Don't you think that it is about time that you started looking beyond your emotions and started deal with the facts? Or are you going to carry that dead weight forever?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 236
So you are another who loves To spew facts. FACT.
Yet cannot give an answer either.
We all know it's a horrible thing to have to give up something.
Especially when you worked so hard to get it.....
Again, what can one do that isn't discriminatory? Atleast in the eyes of club 60?
Trust me, even a seniority list is discriminatory. Ask a lawyer. Maybe one that has more to gain than notiriaty and bragging rights. Impartiality is rare when money is on the line.
Why should I be treated differently being here less years than another? Get rid of it. But then this beautiful pyramid with an apex that can only NOW be reached by senior people is ruined.
So shut it unless someone has an actual answer.
And remember it can't have ANYTHING discriminatory in it.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:20 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
Tony

Look back on this and the countless other threads to see some of the suggestions people have had. They're there, you just haven't chosen to notice them.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:24 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Posts: 132
the original tony wrote:
So you are another who loves To spew facts. FACT. Yet cannot give an answer either. So shut it unless someone has an actual answer.


Not a fact. Here is my answer. It is discriminatory because the law says that is discriminatory. Make sense? It makes sense to me. Why look any further? Comprendo?

the original tony wrote:
Why should I be treated differently being here less years than another?


Because the Gods in Ottawa willed it that way. So get over it. You had your chance to work with accepting the changes so as to minimize the impact, and you blew it, sitting cursing the dark. It's been said here before and it apparently needs to be said here again for those who are too thick to get it the first time, or the second time. This isn't about Air Canada pilots. It's about almost one million Canadians in the federal sector, the majority of whom had no right to any income after age 65, prior to the repeal of the mandatory retirement law.

Maybe you should go back and listen to the Parliamentary recording of our illustrious union President telling the parliamentarians that Parliament had to be mindful of the effect of repealing mandatory retirement—that it would reduce the senior pilot's pension income by a few thousand dollars (the implication being that it would lower us from the top 0.075% of the income earners in the country to the top 0.080% of income earners in the country). Incredible. And he said it with a straight face, if you can believe it.

And look at the context. He was making his speech to Parliamentarians who had oodles of constituents whose termination of employment at age 65 by reason of mandatory retirement was putting them below the poverty line because not only did they have no pension at all, they had no reasonable prospect of getting any other job. No sh*t. Get some perspective, man.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 236
I am over a hundred percent sure this has nothing to do with AC pilots alone. Unfortunately that is the group that is trying to take advantage of this well meaning law....
I guarantee you not one of us unles you started at the ripe age of 59 would retire under the poverty line. Barring any stupidities you got yourself into. Govt sees the CPP bank dwindling away. To balance a budget they need money. So they do YOU the favor of allowing you to work more. No sucking on the federal nipple. Less out of the coffers and they look grand. YOU get to work longer. Wow, I do get it.
No old age supplement, nothing. Let's work them into the ground. Dead don't claim benefits. And YOU see this as being a magical savior to everybody. If this law was meant to help keep people above the poverty line by "allowing" them to work longer, Simultaneously keeping younger people under the poverty longer. It's working.
Great law. I'm proud to continue working so my kids can stay unemployed. My perspective isn't greed its common sense.
Most laws don't have a lot of reason behind them. This is one of them. Atleast in our case where retirees make more than most working full time.
I'm out. I have to go work and plan my life. Something more pilots should do so they can retire.

Tony, EMJ FO



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 2467
Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:
the original tony wrote:
So you are another who loves To spew facts. FACT. Yet cannot give an answer either. So shut it unless someone has an actual answer.


Not a fact. Here is my answer. It is discriminatory because the law says that is discriminatory. Make sense? It makes sense to me. Why look any further? Comprendo?


Tee-hee. It always makes me laugh when people misuse the verb comprender when asking someone else if they understand something. FYI, you just asked yourself if you understand, not tony. Should have said comprendes

Back on topic now. I thought you FP60 boys would be all high fiving each other and salivating at the acknowledgement by the company that they are preparing to implement and respect the government deadline for mandatory retirement. Perhaps tipping their hand that they will not be pursuing BFOR arguments? Perhaps there is actual negotiating of this eventuality between the union and the company that you, me and the rest of the membership are unaware of. A solution may be found. Probably something that neither side is terribly happy with but that's the way it goes in a nasty divorce.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:34 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
yycflyguy wrote:
I thought you FP60 boys would be all high fiving each other and salivating at the acknowledgement by the company that they are preparing to implement and respect the government deadline for mandatory retirement.


Granted I'm not part of the FP60 group, but I am by no means happy about the company folding up their tent and complying with the law. It's been inevitable and the only surprising thing is it took so long so in that regard I feel nothing. I am exceedingly unhappy however because even now we as a pilot group still don't get it.

There is potentially massive liability to come thanks to our continuing inability to think critically, and we are still missing the last opportunity to actually gain back some of the monetary benefits this will bring the company. As a group we also still refuse to acknowledge something the entire country feels strongly enough about to make illegal. It makes us look like a bunch of backwoods hillbillies.

What's there to be high fiving about?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:26 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm
Posts: 120
yycflyguy wrote:
I thought you FP60 boys would be all high fiving each other and salivating at the acknowledgement by the company that they are preparing to implement and respect the government deadline for mandatory retirement.


After all of these posts and your direct involvement in so many of them, you really don’t understand us, do you? There is no cause for celebration here, given the fracture in our union and the huge liability that is still hanging in the balance. You, along with the others, seem to suggest that this was, or is, a “we versus they” battle. That has never been our message, despite the attempts by others to put words in our mouths. We simply said it was coming, and that ACPA should attempt to benefit from the change, not fight the inevitable.

Six years ago, we were vocal about what was going to happen, more as an alert than as a warning. The message did not change, although it was repeated and repeated, and although it was constantly received with much criticism and cynicism.

Isn’t it a dismal state of affairs when the members of a professional union get their first official notice of an impending massive change to the way they structure their working lives not from their own elected representatives, but rather by an inappropriate memo from their employer that bypasses the duly elected and appointed representatives of own union, and communicates directly with them about how they must agree to changes in the collective agreement?

Six weeks after the legislation received royal assent my union has yet to even tell its members that the law has changed and that we must adjust. Instead, it waited for the company to get the message out. And get it out it did. No wonder pilots are confused.

yycflyguy wrote:
Perhaps tipping their hand that they will not be pursuing BFOR arguments?


Do you honestly think that the company doesn’t know that BFOR is a dead issue? The legal hurdles to overcome in order to sustain the defence are immense, and Air Canada didn’t even attempt to make an effort to meet some of the required steps. Read what the judge had to say about that:

“[422] Meiorin imposes both procedural and substantive obligations on employers when dealing with discriminatory employment standards. One important question to be considered in determining whether these obligations have been satisfied is whether the employer has investigated alternative approaches that do not have a discriminatory effect. Another important question is whether there are different ways to perform the job, while still accomplishing the employer's legitimate work-related purpose."

"[423] That is, it will be incumbent on an employer to show that it had considered and reasonably rejected all viable forms of accommodation.”

What did Air Canada do to accommodate any of its pilots? Nothing. It fired everyone. No exceptions. Not even a question to a single pilot about reasonable alternatives, such as working in a different capacity. Captains. F/Os. Even R/Ps that don’t even count in the ICAO age restrictions got fired. Air Canada fired them all. And it is still firing them all. Unbelievable. One of our members told me that he wrote a letter to the VP asking why. The answer that he got back, in a letter, right from the top: “We are going to keep terminating pilots until ordered to do otherwise.”

Good luck on your BFOR hopes. If BFOR isn’t dead now, it will be dead by December.


yycflyguy wrote:
Perhaps there is actual negotiating of this eventuality between the union and the company that you, me and the rest of the membership are unaware of. A solution may be found. Probably something that neither side is terribly happy with but that's the way it goes in a nasty divorce.


You must have missed the previous posts about having no ability to negotiate. Nobody can negotiate statutory rights. Not the individual pilot, not the Coalition, not the Union, not the employer. So don’t expect any settlement that, as you say, “nobody is terribly happy with.” It’s not on the table. Not because we don’t want it on the table. But because neither we nor anybody else has the ability to put it on the table.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1178
Seven pages, over 150 + posts, and thousands of "excited" fans and you guys still can't put the curtain on this comedy???? I'd say this thread should be locked down, or deleted completely.

Why??? Because, it's a FP60 club members mostly talking AND bringing up the same old "awareness issues" to a majority of club members who really will NEVER agree with you people. EVER! Maybe, it's a bit harsh, but I will speak in my name and I don't think that even a brain transplant will ever change my stand on this.

Rockie wrote:
Govern your actions on that instead of railing at the skies over your perceived injustice.
Perceived injustice?!! Sorry Rockie, but I gotta pick on you, because you contribute 85% on this topic. How did you move up to the rank that you are now today at AC? (I assume you work there?) Is it because of your excellent flying or critical thinking skills, or is it because you have a relative that works/worked in flight ops and pulled you up?? No, I didn't think so. Not that I question your flying skills or command leadership, but your my pal are at the position there because SOMEONE AHEAD of you politely retired when the time came, respecting the mutual agreement set in black and white between PILOTS and Air Canada. We been here before I think, but you guys are quick to bring some no related pension facts from Ottawa or supreme court of justice about inequality or discrimination. So I say it again, all you FP60 folks are there because of the mutual agreement AND respect of your colleagues who didn't kick and scream when their time came to put the park break on for the last time. Called it respect, airmanship, fellowship....but thousands of pilots before you didn't use these injustice/discrimination tricks to defend their retirements. You guys are the prime example of ME society who wants it all, and who blames everyone else for their failures in life or short backs, lack of time in their career, bad timing in the industry, economy, kids, wife(ves), higher living expenses......etc, etc. So the only way you can (or think you can) correct this is by pissing on the rest of the crowd who is doing their job that they signed up for in the first place.

Now, yes, the times are changing, people are living longer, healthier (or so they think) and the Gov't is short changed on the pension fund, so they give you a perfect solution. Work more, so that we don't have to pay you sooner, and with that we (the Gov't) hope that you will kick the bucket sooner, preferably while still working, so we don't have to pay you at all when you;re gone!! Someone really clever figured this out!

The Original Tony has pointed that all too well, and majority of folks understands this all too well, but a small blinded minority is too greedy to realize that. Their shinny metal and sadly lack of or no life at home, prevents them from realizing this.

Hey guys, I understand it's not easy, in fact, it's a big traumatic shock (that can be mitigated if you thought/planed ahead of your retirement) for anyone to retire after 35-40 years of doing something that you love! But that was the deal you signed up and you can't go BACK on the agreement and now make 3000+ other guys unhappy and miserable because you are. I should rephrase, I guess you CAN now, but is that really the just and right thing to do?? How would you feel if 1000 pilots who are retired already, decide to come back and use this same new Law and jump EVERYONE at AC including even you??? Guys who are 70 or 75 even, all bumping you guys and the senior folks at AC, all the way down to the EMB level?? Hundreds of junior guys displaced, demoted or on lay off now trying really hard to keep their families in tact!??? Triple seven guys dropping down to A320 level, A320 folks bumping off RP pilots, and your super senior FP60 club, suddenly finding yourselves in the middle of the seniority pack. Doing crappy pairings, red eyes, min credit, sitting on reserve, not holding preferred (or assumed schedule you all thought you would get)????!!...It all seems like a horror story, and hard to comprehend, but once the doors are open - ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

To sum it up, yes, the LAW has changed, and in fact times are changing....the government is going to have it their way, and they are trying to make the rest of society work even past 65 before they have a right to earn their CPP. They will paint the picture however it needs to be, to cover the lack of budget and funds THEY blew away doing something that the rest of us, including you guys, didn't sign up for!

What can you guys all working for AC do?? Ignore the fact that you CAN work "till you die", and just remain "status quo". When your time comes, retire and live and enjoy your life. That 's what retirement was designed for! You love flying?? Go instruct at your local club, pass on the valuable experience to the new kids, tell them how is the road ahead. Truthfully, don't sugar coat it... Travel, get a hobby, volunteer, take your grand kids on a trip.....I don't care, just live your life and SPEND that retirement money before someone takes it from you. Today is 60, tomorrow the Law is going to be 65 for ALL pilots at AC because you allowed it and set the precedent. Instead of safeguarding this extraordinary perk in your contract, you are letting the Gov't and Management vultures take the spin on this and make this worse for everyone in 5 or maybe 10 years. But you won't care then, because you will be retired by then (hopefully) and won't give a damn about the people behind you.

Rockie wrote:
Govern your actions on that instead of railing at the skies over your perceived injustice.


So, tell me again Rockie, what perceived injustice are we talking about?? Or should the majority of 3000+ pilots fill a grievance to the courts and show their discontent about this new law???



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:20 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 2467
Rockie wrote:
yycflyguy wrote:
I thought you FP60 boys would be all high fiving each other and salivating at the acknowledgement by the company that they are preparing to implement and respect the government deadline for mandatory retirement.



There is potentially massive liability to come thanks to our continuing inability to think critically, and we are still missing the last opportunity to actually gain back some of the monetary benefits this will bring the company. As a group we also still refuse to acknowledge something the entire country feels strongly enough about to make illegal. It makes us look like a bunch of backwoods hillbillies.


I guess you skimmed over the part of my post where I mention that none of us know exactly WHAT is being negotiated with the company. The timing of negotiating a CBA and the implementation of the abolishment date of retirement is impeccable. Do you think that it was just a coincidence the way it played out?

As for as the liability issue that the posters keep pounding on here, I simply do not agree that ACPA or AC is as vulnerable that you make them out to be. Not going to debate you on that because we just wont agree. I know the "potential" for liability got a lot of names on the litigants list. Not because they genuinely felt discriminated against or that they wanted to come back to fly. Only because it was no skin off their nose to throw the cause a few bucks with the hollow promise of big bucks later.

Oh, one other thing. The average Canadian, or entire country does not give a rip about this. This is being pushed through by the Conservative government.

With so many other important things going on with the union, negotiations and the direction of the company and careers of everyone, this debate is becoming obsolete.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 162
For Mig 29

The majority is not with you.......

The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60.

We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."



Yep....great twist of statistics. 82% of 1800 pilots still isn't 50% of the 3000+ ACPA pilots.

Next please....



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm
Posts: 48
When some retired guys I know started, they understood they would be retiring at 45; because that was the law. When that changed, no-one told them they had to go at 45 because that was what they agreed to; most saw it as a stupid rule gone.

Similarly, there are many pilots flying now with medical conditions that were career ending when they joined. Very few people would expect them to leave because those were the rules when they joined; most welcome them back on the line, even if that person is senior.

Those outside the Airline hoping to get in congratulate someone who is hired, even though that person will be ahead of them if they eventually get on; they don't curse those who got in ahead of them.

Most of those who objected to retiring at 60 didn't sign on to this fight in anticipation of a financial reward; they simply wanted to keep on flying. There may be some that did get into the game hoping for a payout, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Some who are posting here appear to have got into flying for the money, and complain that others won't get out of their way. Not the pilot I want to work with on a dark and dirty night.

Things change; we don't yet know what the final details will be, but people will continue to retire; when they want, not to satisfy your fantasy of advancement.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:54 pm
Posts: 3
The love of flying is what got me into this, and is what keeps me in it. Position and schedule obviously have a great impact on anyone's life. In a full seniority system like AC's, this is a very significant detail to abruptly change.

Regardless of what is ruled, every AC pilot has accepted positions and moved up the food chain with an understanding of their contract and the historical system. Significant changes have always involved grandfathering. To say that new hires could accept positions under a drastically different system and could fly to an unlimited age, would be absolutely fair. For a small, specific age group (FP60) to have been fighting for immediate change only after reaping the benefits, is absolutely nothing more than personal greed. Every member and supporter of this group is on the tail end of their career, and not one of them had been fighting for this when they were 'young'. The discrimination card is convenient, and in this case, about as righteous as denying that their lifestyle at Air Canada hadn't become sweeter by becoming 'older'.

It is honestly nothing classier than sending a meal back to the kitchen at a restaurant after you've eaten it... while staring at starving people in line.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:40 am
Posts: 540
Quote:
Some who are posting here appear to have got into flying for the money, and complain that others won't get out of their way. Not the pilot I want to work with on a dark and dirty night.
Would that include the FP 60 crowd?

The government changed the goal posts due to their apparent ponzi scheme known as the CPP, the junior pilots can fix it right now with this contract.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:40 am
Posts: 540
Duplicate post :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:43 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Posts: 132
whipline wrote:
The government changed the goal posts due to their apparent ponzi scheme known as the CPP, the junior pilots can fix it right now with this contract.


How? Like they fixed the contract last year? The next company offer will be even lower.

You obviously haven't read through any of the last 600 posts here on the age 60 issue. There is a Toronto meeting this coming Wednesday. How about planning to attend, so that you can begin to get just a glimmer of what the realistic options are?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5342
Mig29 wrote:
Sorry Rockie, but I gotta pick on you, because you contribute 85% on this topic. How did you move up to the rank that you are now today at AC? (I assume you work there?)


You say I contribute 85% of the posts on this topic so you likely know I've been arguing this point for several years now. In fact I've been arguing this point for roughly 80% of the time I've been at Air Canada. This isn't a new position I've taken thanks to my lofty position on the seniority list. I am in fact very junior with a long way to go until retirement.

Mig29 wrote:
but your my pal are at the position there because SOMEONE AHEAD of you politely retired when the time came,


No. If I hold a position higher than the lowest entry position at Air Canada I assure you it is because of the many, many pilots ahead of me on the list who have stagnated their own careers by bidding a position below what they could hold. Absolutely nobody could have retired since I came here and I would still be in the same position I'm in now.

Mig29 wrote:
So, tell me again Rockie, what perceived injustice are we talking about?? Or should the majority of 3000+ pilots fill a grievance to the courts and show their discontent about this new law???


You tell me. How do you think you've been wronged? Is it your stagnation on the seniority list? Nope, that hasn't happened yet and you have no idea how much your career progression will be slowed. Is it a reduction in pay? Nope, that hasn't happened yet either, and there is a very good chance you could be making more right now if you bid the highest position you could hold much like most of our pilots.

This law was going to change even if Air Canada and the pilots you hate so much didn't exist. Get over it and get on with the job FINALLY of dealing with it. You're already many years behind schedule.

yycflyguy wrote:
Oh, one other thing. The average Canadian, or entire country does not give a rip about this. This is being pushed through by the Conservative government.


The rest of the country already made mandatory retirement illegal a long time ago. This government was simply catching up. Hardly what I would call "not giving a rip". Only the willingly blind couldn't see that. As well if the union is negotiating something with the company about this don't you think the members should have some input? Did we not learn anything from the last round?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm
Posts: 70
Here's my prediction: FP 60 will win the right to work as AC pilots till whenever. The extra 5 year gravy train on top of the tripple ain't gonna happen like they are planning. The complainants will continue to complain because their settlement, if any, might buy them a canoe instead of a cabin cruiser ( after all this is Canada )... Or AC will have the help of Ottawa to win BFOR. I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the government actually gives a darn about retired pilots. Legislative change is about pushing their agenda not human rights. Their agenda is fiscal and pro business. Think sympathy for AC and what it wants. There, don't say you weren't informed. Over and out...pile on guys. Crush me with your one sided blind to alternatives opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 365
Ah_yeah wrote:
..pile on guys. Crush me with your one sided blind to alternatives opinions.


I am not going to "pile on." I am simply going to ask you to answer the last question that I posed to you (Page 5 of this Thread, last post). What do you say?



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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 Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


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 support@avcanada.ca .  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.