Question For Ray and Over 60

[SeaBat]

Ray and Over 60,

Just wondering, and would like to ask a legitimate question:

With all the happenings lately at AC, do you guys really want to return? The airline isn't the same as when you left. There are changes coming to the pension, therefore, if you return you would give up your "grandfather" rights to you current pension. Pass travel has changed. The company has a microscope on you every time you book off (there is rumour that they will want a doctor's note for every occurence). Passengers are not happy, no matter how much you go the extra mile.

Do you guys really want to come back to this environment, or are you now content to sit on the sidelines and enjoy retirement?

[vic777]

Do you guys really want to come back to this environment, or are you now content to sit on the sidelines and enjoy retirement?

Well you have to assume that for what ever reason, the guys who come back, want to come back. But for a lot of retirees, golfing, riding the Harley and the million other opportunities are a lot more attractive than working for AC. I personally don't think there will be too many over age Sixty-Two actually coming back, but it will be interesting to see. I expect a high percentage to stay on after Dec 01 2012, however. AC will enjoy huge savings by these Pilots staying on.

[Raymond Hall]

Just wondering, and would like to ask a legitimate question: With all the happenings lately at AC, do you guys really want to return? ... Do you guys really want to come back to this environment, or are you now content to sit on the sidelines and enjoy retirement?

A few months ago I surveyed a significant proportion of my over 160 clients who are currently before the Tribunal (there are another 20 or so in process with the Commission, whose files should be referred to the Tribunal within the next couple of months or so). A significant proportion were emphatic in stating that they fully intend to return to Air Canada. The majority of those expect to return as Captains, but many others who are approaching or over age 65 will elect to return as First Officers.

I tell my non-aviation friends and associates that the Air Canada pilot job is really two jobs. The first is the job that exists prior to releasing the brakes, and then again after setting the parking brake at home base. The other job is the one made up of the period in between. Personally, if I come back (and I should have the answer to that "if" later this year), I will be coming back for the "brakes off" portion of the Air Canada job, not the "brakes on" portion.

Sure, there are lots of problems and challenges with the job. And the employment and compensation situation is anything but certain. However, notwithstanding my disagreements with ACPA and its decisions in respect of the areas in which we are in conflict, I have an immense confidence in the ability of the Air Canada pilots and their Association to persevere, to overcome the obstacles facing them in the current corporate warfare environment, and in their ability to maintain their unwavering dedication to professionalism in the Canadian aviation regime.

[SeaBat]

It appears that the landscape may change dramatically. If the EMJ & 319 fleet are stripped from mainline, there will be approx 1000 - 1400 layoffs. The remaining 1600 pilots will not be able to sustain the pensions of those already collecting an annuity. Are your membership aware of these eventualities? Are you guys lobbying the government in order to protect your pensions?

[Raymond Hall]

Aware of the many issues facing everyone? Yes. Involved in anything outside our issue? No.

[mduffy]

Raymond,

That is a very eloquent response. But, speaking hypothetically, if I was sitting next to you, you would not enoy the 'Brakes Off' part. And nor would I.

[BverLuver]

Aware of the many issues facing everyone? Yes. Involved in anything outside our issue? No.

Raymond,

In no way do I intend to get into a mudslinging contest with you on this, it's just an observation based on your comment.

The above quote is seemingly why your "group" gets the reputation of being money grabbing and greedy rather than fighting for "justice". The pension issues among others affect ALL of the pilots currently in the queue, incuding those in your group that may return to service after the rulings.

So, if equality and protection of pilots judicial and contractual rights are paramount to your cause, why wouldn't you also be involved in preserving this for future generations when they reach retirement age? It's the same questions as to why the fight started after you and your group turned 60 and not 10yrs before? As stated, it gives the outsiders and, more importantly, the junior members of acpa a perception of greed and lack of moral fibre which will not help the willingness of junior members to accept over age 60 returnees back into the cockpits with open arms.

BL

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond, That is a very eloquent response. But, speaking hypothetically, if I was sitting next to you, you would not enoy the 'Brakes Off' part. And nor would I.

That is indeed a problem, for you. As a professional, be it in aviation, or in law, I have always appreciated the ability of other professionals to separate their professional involvements from their emotional involvements. When I strapped that aircraft to my bottom, I never had any misgivings for my crew or passengers, that they could realistically expect and receive my full professional commitment to getting them safely from A to B, without any baggage, except their own.

In my work in my professional capacity in the legal realm, I can assure you, that my clients can expect and do receive the same commitment. Total commitment to ensuring that the decisions that are made on their behalf are made in their interest, without any extraneous emotional baggage.

So, go ahead. Try to make my life miserable, if you wish, by attempting to ensure that I will not enjoy the "brakes off" portion of my commitment to my professional responsibility. You will harm only yourself. And quite frankly, my job is not to make you enjoy yours. That is why we have the Twitchell bid, still in place, 40 years later.

[Raymond Hall]

Aware of the many issues facing everyone? Yes. Involved in anything outside our issue? No.

Raymond, The above quote is seemingly why your "group" gets the reputation of being money grabbing and greedy rather than fighting for "justice". The pension issues among others affect ALL of the pilots currently in the queue, incuding those in your group that may return to service after the rulings.

So, if equality and protection of pilots judicial and contractual rights are paramount to your cause, why wouldn't you also be involved in preserving this for future generations when they reach retirement age? It's the same questions as to why the fight started after you and your group turned 60 and not 10yrs before? As stated, it gives the outsiders and, more importantly, the junior members of acpa a perception of greed and lack of moral fibre which will not help the willingness of junior members to accept over age 60 returnees back into the cockpits with open arms.

Good question. Straight forward answer. Neither I nor anyone I represent, to my knowledge, has any direct or indirect interest in getting directly involved in issues that already have too many parties fighting over who represents whom, and over what issue and what outcome should dominate the agenda.

I cannot speak for all of the pilots whom I represent. But I can speak for myself. I have never been in this for the financial reward. Why else would I dedicate six years of my life to working for a cause that has given me zero dollars in income when I could have easily worked elsewhere for big bucks? In short, it is not about the money. It is about dealing with reality and embracing change, for the long-term benefit of all. And it is about moving forward rather than being mired in the past.

I told ACPA (and anyone else who would listen) in 2006 that this change was coming, that ACPA could benefit by embracing the inevitable change rather than fighting it, and that it would be destructive to fight it. That position has never resonated with the MEC or the majority of the membership. So be it. My opinion on that has not changed, except to be reinforced, given the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption in the statute.

ACPA has an incredibly difficult task ahead of it now, getting through its existing challenges. That task has not been made any easier, in my view, by the most recent initiative of past Executives challenging the union's direction and its means of focusing on overcoming the present collective bargaining impasse.

Do I care? Absolutely. Do I want to interfere? Absolutely not. I, and the almost 200 pilots that I now represent, have some serious and legitimate issues with the union's position on some issues. We will get over this. And we and ACPA will move on.

But neither I nor any of my clients (to my knowledge) want to complicate the issue that we are dealing with by distracting ourselves by getting involved with another issue that is already being capably handled by others on our behalf.

[ahramin]

As usual Ray, very well said.

Any chance you'd share the history of why it's called the Twitchell bid?

[Rotten Apple #1]

ahramin, perhaps this isn't the info you desire, but I found a reference to the "Twitchell Bid" on CANLII.ORG.

The possibility of personality differences which could give rise to confrontations on the
flight deck is in fact contemplated by Air Canada since it does consider and assess
personality characteristics of the pilot applicant during the initial interview process.
Furthermore, it is also considered the basis of the "Twitchell Bid" process whereby Air
Canada first officers do not select their assignments until after the captains have chosen
their assignments and they have been made known to the lower rank officers. By this
process, personality conflicts can be avoided by a first officer steering clear of a captain
with whom he may have some problems of compatibility.

[Raymond Hall]

Any chance you'd share the history of why it's called the Twitchell bid?

It is named after Harold F. Twitchell, born 1934, and hired by Air Canada (Trans Canada Airlines) in March of 1955. The issue apparently arose in the 1960's, when the block schedules for Captains and First Officers were posted on the same day. I have no knowledge of the precise incident that sparked the need to separate the bidding, but from my early days at Air Canada (1970's) I can say that I learned of lots of interpersonal conflicts resulting from many different issues.

One of the biggest conflict-generating issues in those days was smoking in the cockpit. The was no restriction until into the late 1980's or early 1990's, and several Captains used to smoke huge stogies continuously.

In any event, the union and the employer came to the work-around whereby First Officer bids would close the day after the Captain bids. It was a partial solution only, but it took a lot of the pressure off some recurring issues.

[cj555]

Ray and Over 60,

Just wondering, and would like to ask a legitimate question:

With all the happenings lately at AC, do you guys really want to return? The airline isn't the same as when you left.

I am an outsider seriously a career change at age 30 to pursue a career in aviation. However, I am hearing all kinds of things about AC, and quite frankly it worries me. Can anyone explain to me in clear, layman's terms what is going on at AC?


I have no side or opinion on this, I am just interested to know what is going on. Why and what is changing at AC, and why does it seem to be having such a profound effect on everyone involved?

[CanadianEh]

To give you a very brief summary cj555;

1) The contract for Air Canada pilots has expired
2) Pilots were basically asked to make more concessions, even though the concessions made by pilots and retirees in the past decade were instrumental to the financial health to the company, especially given the irresponsible managemnet
3) What the company offered the pilots was unsatisfactory (so say the least), so it was voted down
4) The Pilots voted 97% strike, demonstrating their unity
5) The company threatened to lock the pilots out
6) Lisa Raitt (read: C&NT) referred the whole matter to the CIRB where the pilots new contract will be decided through arbitration.
7) As a result of this, the pilots have lost their ability to strike and will have to take whatever the arbitrator decides with no right to an appeal... Ray can tell you more about how this infringes on natural justice

Overall, there is a total lack of respect from management towards the group of employees that arguably make the most significant financial impact on the company. There are now lots of things up in the air including whether pilots will continue getting a pension or whether their jobs will be outsourced to other operators. It's a mess.

[Mechanic787]

I am an outsider seriously a career change at age 30 to pursue a career in aviation.

For what it's worth. Make your decision outside of any information that you might receive on this Forum, no matter what kind of advice that you might receive. The people who post here, including myself, are not properly representative of those that you will find in any future employment that you might acquire.

[vic777]

I am an outsider seriously a career change at age 30 to pursue a career in aviation.

For what it's worth. Make your decision outside of any information that you might receive on this Forum, no matter what kind of advice that you might receive.

And beware the Oxymoron.

[vic777]

Raymond,

That is a very eloquent response. But, speaking hypothetically, if I was sitting next to you, you would not enoy the 'Brakes Off' part. And nor would I.

My experience is that fellows with your attitude already don't enjoy the 'Brakes Off' part, nor much of anything else, for that matter.

[vic777]

It's the same questions as to why the fight started after you and your group turned 60 and not 10yrs before?

The fight 'started' with Captain Ross Stevenson in the Seventies if not decades before that.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 88,4028935

[Les Lavoie]

It's the same questions as to why the fight started after you and your group turned 60 and not 10yrs before?

BL

To oversimplefy the answer, one cannot file for discrimination before one has been discriminated against, in other words, one has to wait until one's employment has been teminated by reason of age, ( a prohibited act under the law ) for AC pilots of the time, the first day of the month after they reached 60. Georges Vilven was the first to file under the present laws and was joined by Neil Kelly, then all the others.