Can the illegal acts still be condoned?

[Martin Tamme]

the way we think of a retirement affecting
6 our training is, that pilot has to be backfilled and
7 then that pilot has to be backfilled, and it causes
8 seven training courses including that of a new hire to
9 replace the retiring pilot. So if a pilot retires it
10 causes $300,000 worth of training. If the pilot delays
11 the retirement one year, that would delay that cost of
12 $300,000 by one year.

So there are no real cost savings; rather, all you have is a "delay in costs". It could be one Quarter, one year, or maybe even 5+ years, but in the end a cost will be borne. The problem is that if a pilot gets to choose when to retire, Air Canada will not know when they would have to bear that cost: Is it going to be this month, this year, or the year thereafter? How do make an annual budget if you can't plan your fixed costs accordingly?

Then there is also the time horizon. Let's assume that a pilot no longer has to give notice as to when he wants to retire. Suppose one day he wakes up and decides this to be his last day. Can the Company replace him tomorrow? The answer is yes if the position that pilot held was either an EMJ F/O or RP. However, if he happens to be a B777 Captain, it may require 7 different courses -requiring most probably over a year's time frame of training- to have him replaced. As such, you can't just replace a B777 Captain on the spur of the moment (Unless of course you do away with the Seniority-based system, which may also be a Human Rights violation).

Also, let's assume that pilots will get to decide when they want to retire. If it where up to you and you decided you wanted to retire this year, which month would decide to retire in? Most probably, most would choose either June or July 1st. What would happen if every single B777 Captain were over the age of 60, and all of sudden all decided to retire July 1st? What would happen to the B777 fleet over the summer?

The point that I'm trying to make is that not being able to plan correctly will bear a greater cost than the savings earned by having those costs delayed. This has an economic impact, which is the foundation of a BFOR argument.

[Rockie]

$300,000 per pilot, and that doesn't include cost savings on the pension.

Goes a long way to recouping whatever it will cost Air Canada. ACPA (meaning us) on the other hand doesn't save a penny, and will be directly out of pocket for half of the liability plus legal costs incurred. Plus when ACPA finally has to own up to how badly they mishandled this whole sorry mess their credibility will take a serious blow.

Hard to see a downside for the company pursuing this agenda they know they will lose eventually.

[Martin Tamme]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this. As has already previously been pointed out on this Board, ACPA is basically out of the picture, being relegated to merely being an observer. It doesn't matter what ACPA wants, the Company will not and would never have acquiesced.

P.S. The $300,000 per pilot is not a cost savings; rather it is a delay in cost. The savings would be in the interest earned on the $300,000 over the time period of the delay if it were invested in T-Bills.

[777longhaul]

Martin

The answer to your question is simple.

The pilot, regardless of age, will be required by the contract, to give notice. (what ever that maybe, as agreed to acpa/AC hopefully, on this contract).

My view, is that the pilot would give 12 months notice, and have the option of doing that on July 1 or Jan 1 each year.

That gives the co plenty of time to plan to fill the required training movements, and allow for pension planning on the pilots part. it also, allows the co to plan any additional hiring etc.

The numbers can be moved around to obtain the best possible solution for all concerned. It is just a matter of thinking, and planning differently, than they have in the past.

Remember, that not everyone wants to stay, nor will they. The numbers I have seen, show that only 10% of the pilots at that age, want to stay. Regardless of what the percentage is, for every pilot staying the extra year(s), the option of a pilot retiring the same amount of year(s). It is a trade out, with not penalty to the pension plan for early retirement.

This is not that complicated, that even AC/acpa cant handle it. BUT, it must go into the contract now, during negotiations.

The law, is in effect for Dec 15 2012. Howver, any pilot that was planned to be forced retired in Dec 2012, (regardless of which day in Dec 2012) will not be forced out. The pilot, (he/she) officially retires on Jan 1 2012, for all Dec retirements. So, the planning will need to be done for all of Dec 2012, not from Dec 15th onward.

The BFOR issue is available, to AC. It is set in law. It is only applicable, to EACH individual pilot. It can not be applied to a group of pilots. So AC, will have to prove that keeping 2 or 3 pilots, or what ever the number is, creates undue hardship. The BFOR is only on a per person basis, and it is only available, to the employer.

Maybe AC will win the BFOR issue, maybe they wont. The Federal Court of Appeals, is going to let us all know in the New Year, and when they do, that will be the law, and it will be that way, unless the SCC decides to hear the case, and if the SCC overturns, which EVER ruling is issued by the FCA.

There is a huge opportunity right now, to get the acpa contract set up, so that everyone is better off. If acpa fail to set up the opportunity, and explain it properly to the entire pilot group, that will be the biggest loss, in this contract.

The pending pension issue, coming, with the stock markets and world markets heading further down, this will be a very important change to the collective agreement. Hopefully, the obvious advantages, will be utilized by acpa and AC.

[Martin Tamme]

The pilot, regardless of age, will be required by the contract, to give notice. (what ever that maybe, as agreed to acpa/AC hopefully, on this contract).

My view, is that the pilot would give 12 months notice, and have the option of doing that on July 1 or Jan 1 each year.

In theory this would work, but in reality it would not. Let's say you decide to go in 12 months from now, namely January 1st, 2013. However, all of a sudden your spouse gets sick next July and you need time off to be with her. Do you think Air Canada will be able to say "tough, you have to remain until next January, regardless of your circumstance"? That's not going to happen... you're gone. If a person wants to quit a job, you can't force him to stay. Isn't this what this fight is all about: Giving people the choice as to when they want to retire?

The BFOR issue is available, to AC. It is set in law. It is only applicable, to EACH individual pilot. It can not be applied to a group of pilots. So AC, will have to prove that keeping 2 or 3 pilots, or what ever the number is, creates undue hardship.

If a pilot decides to quit without notice and the Company did not plan to having a replacement readily available (because they were not anticipating this withdrawal of service), would it not create undue hardship? The Company would have to carry additional pilots on the roster just as insurance.

Maybe AC will win the BFOR issue, maybe they wont. The Federal Court of Appeals, is going to let us all know in the New Year, and when they do, that will be the law, and it will be that way, unless the SCC decides to hear the case, and if the SCC overturns, which EVER ruling is issued by the FCA.

There is a huge opportunity right now, to get the acpa contract set up, so that everyone is better off. If acpa fail to set up the opportunity, and explain it properly to the entire pilot group, that will be the biggest loss, in this contract.

Sections of the contract can be opened up at any time if both parties agree. A deal can be made now in principle, but it wouldn't have to be implemented until the last Court has spoken. How do we know that this has not already been done, and we are just awaiting the outcome of the final Court decision on the matter?

[morefun]

Martin, anyone can get sick at any time so it doesn't really make any differance if he or she is 60, 64 or 34...same same...

[Raymond Hall]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this. As has already previously been pointed out on this Board, ACPA is basically out of the picture, being relegated to merely being an observer. It doesn't matter what ACPA wants, the Company will not and would never have acquiesced.

With respect, Martin, your proposition is not consistent with the facts. Air Canada is clearly not the driver of this train. The driver is ACPA. Case in point. Air Canada has not only reinstated employees from all the other major unions, but it has mediated settlements of Flight Attendants over age 65, allowing them to return to work. Also, it isn’t Air Canada that refuses to file grievances on behalf of its pilots who object to mandatory retirement. Its hands are clean on that issue.

It is ACPA that is pursuing this on the basis of protecting the career progression of the younger pilots, for as long as it can, until the music stops and we see which pilots are still in the chairs. As I see it, Air Canada is entirely neutral on that issue. It doesn't care which of its pilots fly its planes because it pays the same amount to have them flown, regardless. Air Canada's key issue, from my understanding of the arguments put forth, is its ability to operate its flights, given the constraints imposed by the ICAO restrictions. Hence, its entrenched and determined defence on the BFOR issue.

The $300,000 per pilot is not a cost savings; rather it is a delay in cost.

That is not correct, either. Any reduction in the churning of pilots from position to position provides a substantial net reduction in the total number of courses ultimately taken. While not all of the $300,000 deferred training costs is ultimately saved, a major portion of it is, and 100% of it is saved in the current fiscal year, which, for a company on a short financial leash, that is very, very significant. The recovery of the loss in productivity alone is a permanent saving, because there is one fewer iterations of training, and these multiple pilots are contributing to the bottom line rather than detracting from the bottom line.

[Martin Tamme]

Air Canada has not only reinstated employees from all the other major unions, but it has mediated settlements of Flight Attendants over age 65, allowing them to return to work.

Yes, and if that flight attendant decides to quit tomorrow, you would immediately be able to replace her the following day. There is no long-range planning required for Flight Attendant replacement. Nevertheless, you can't replace a B777 Captain overnight. It is a fact that under our seniority-based system, it would take the Company over a year of planning to replace him.

Planning bears a cost. You don't need planning to replace a flight attendant, but you do need it to replace a pilot, unless of course he were at the bottom of the seniority list. If Neil Kelly & George Vilven had accepted the Company's offer to being EMJ F/Os while getting the maximum pay for the equipment/position they could have held (i.e. B777 F/O), this issue would have been solved a long time ago. Please don't go around blaming Air Canada that they are not being reasonable... they just want to protect their operation without creating undue financial hardship.

[Raymond Hall]

[Yes, and if that flight attendant decides to quit tomorrow, you would be able to immediately replace her the following day. There is no long-range planning required for Flight Attendant replacement. Nevertheless, you can't replace a B777 Captain overnight. It is a fact that under our seniority-based system, it would take the Company over a year of planning to replace him.

Planning bears a cost. You don't need planning to replace a flight attendant, but you do need it to replace a pilot, unless of course he were at the bottom of the seniority list.

That issue was considered in evidence and reflected upon, then dismissed by the Federal Court. Air Canada's witness agreed in testimony that there are means of working around these planning issues, including the potential of requiring a minimum notice period.

Federal Court Decision 2011 FC 120, issued February 3, 2011

[433] Captain Duke testified that if mandatory retirement were abolished at Air Canada, the airline could be caught short if an over-60 pilot suddenly decided to retire, as nothing in the collective agreement requires pilots to give advance notice of when they intend to retire. According to Captain Duke, an unanticipated retirement could have a serious impact on the company’s operations.

[434] Captain Duke conceded that this would not be an issue if Air Canada and ACPA were to agree to a requirement that pilots give a year’s advance notice of their intention to retire, or if the Tribunal were to make such an order. While observing that such a requirement could potentially be difficult to enforce as it is hard to force someone to work if they do not want to, Captain Duke acknowledged that economic incentives could be created to encourage the giving of timely notice.

[435] Air Canada does not take issue with this assertion, but says that the Tribunal erred in failing to order that such a provision be included in the Air Canada/ACPA collective agreement. I am not persuaded that the Tribunal erred as alleged.

Air Canada already deals with that problem every month. Pilots die on motorcycles, fall of rooves of houses, fall over ice cliffs while skiing and contract serious illnesses that preclude them from reporting to work, sometimes forever. Not all of these occurrences allow the employer to plan for them, but that is why it has some contingencies built into its collective agreement. It can't negotiate a provision that pilots must give adequate notice to the employer prior to getting killed in on a motorcycle, so it works around the problem. This problem is no reason to arbitrarily terminate the employment of all pilots on the basis of age discrimination. At least, that's what the court said.

[vic777]

That is not correct, either. Any reduction in the churning of pilots from position to position provides a substantial net reduction in the total number of courses ultimately taken.

Good point, and if career averages went from Twenty years to Forty years, that would mean half the number of courses, forever! ACPA should pay an Actuary to get them some facts to take into bargaining. These tremendous windfall savings should be passed onto the Pilots. You'd think that the AC Executives would be up to speed on this. But I guess they know these savings will be realized but never have to be shown on the books. They can say the increase in profits is due to good management.

[vic777]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this.

Actually I think you're incorrect. Air Canada desperately tried to get out of this. Remember when they told ACPA, " If you don't pay half we're bailing". They were looking for a way out. They were probably just as shocked as the ACPA dues payers when ACPA decided to roll the dice with the members money to advance the Senior ACPA Elite.

[Martin Tamme]

Martin, anyone can get sick at any time so it doesn't really make any differance if he or she is 60, 64 or 34...same same...

Yes and the Company has a statistic for this: They carry an additional 7% number of pilots on each equipment/position roster. They could easily figure out the statistic as to how many pilots want to retire at or before 60, but it would be impossible to determine of those who want to remain past 60 as to when they want to go. They would have to carry an additional percentage of pilots, but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough. In either case, it bears a cost, which would create undue financial hardship.

[Martin Tamme]

Actually I think you're incorrect. Air Canada desperately tried to get out of this. Remember when they told ACPA, " If you don't pay half we're bailing". They were looking for a way out.

Then what's preventing the Company from pulling the plug now? Please don't say that they are trying to appease ACPA. The fact that they recently filed a "notice of dispute" clearly indicates that there is no honeymoon. Air Canada doesn't care about ACPA; Air Canada only does what is in Air Canada's best interest.

[vic777]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

[vic777]

Then what's preventing the Company from pulling the plug now?

Who is the AC Executive who started this fiasco? Maybe he can't admit failure, for whatever reason.

[accumulous]

They would have to carry an additional percentage of pilots, but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough. In either case, it bears a cost, which would create undue financial hardship.

Too simple – no data, no financial hardship. Nobody knows when anybody will quit, never mind the pilots sitting in the left seat of a B787 at the top. You financial hardship data has to cover ALL 3000 pilots compared to returning pilots and it can’t, so your argument is void. You can't 'make up' statistics in court. A bunch of happy B787 Captains could be the most stable lot the Corp has ever seen. The only data that exists is with all the pilots wanting leaves, going on GDIP, quitting for other carriers, getting fired, etc. There’s the hardship, not with senior B787 pilots wanting to stay. That’s a red herring and there are likely about a hundred different statistical ways to color it red.

So there are no real cost savings; rather, all you have is a "delay in costs". It could be one Quarter, one year, or maybe even 5+ years, but in the end a cost will be borne. The problem is that if a pilot gets to choose when to retire, Air Canada will not know when they would have to bear that cost: Is it going to be this month, this year, or the year thereafter? How do make an annual budget if you can't plan your fixed costs accordingly?

Doesn’t take a lot of rocket science to discover that if 3000 pilots go past 60, you get mega-millions on TODAY’S plate to leverage against THIS contract.

So everybody gets a raise in pay, and the chance to collect it much longer, and a bigger pension.

ACPA of course, in the Alternate Universe, is headed in the opposite direction toward a black hole earmarked just for them. Standard operating procedure for us. No speed, no altitude, no ideas. The back side of the power band. Einstein said space is curved. Our space is seriously warped.

In terms of retirements, none of the 25,000 employees at Air Canada have to give any substantial notice whatsoever. You can walk in tomorrow and plunk your wings on the oak desk. Every single B777 pilot can walk in tomorrow and plunk the wings on the oak desk.

That scenario might very well happen if it appears AC is heading into a serious round of CCAA. You want to get out now and be first on somebody else’s seniority list or you want to get out last and be last on somebody else’s seniority list? Count the number of Canadian airlines where that already played out.

In terms of projected retirements, what might likely transpire is a simple rule of providing a more suitable advance notice of intended retirement. Note that it would also be in the Corp’s best interest to apply that all the way across the list from bottom to top. However, that still does not prevent you or anybody from strolling in and plunking the wings on the oak desk first thing tomorrow morning, regardless of your seniority.

The guys and gals who will be continuing past December, 2012, and the returning pilots, will easily save the Company their half of the litigation tab, and a massive whack more. ACPA’s half would have to be negotiated. Good luck with that one. Somebody suggested AC management was inept? Au contraire.

The BFOR issue was lost in fairly spectacular fashion in the Thwaites case, following the SCC explicit guidelines. If anybody thinks they can overturn that one and additionally be the only outfit on the continent to have an issue with BFOR, best of luck on that one too. That 16kg of BFOR paper you mentioned cost about 50 bucks at Future Shop, including the ink cartridge, and it’s a smartly inexpensive way to run us out of time to leverage anything out of the gains on the end of mandatory retirement. It’s probably the high cabin altitude or something that’s doing this to us.

[Understated]

Air Canada doesn't care about ACPA; Air Canada only does what is in Air Canada's best interest.

Is ACPA any different?

Probably not, save for the fact that it makes its current decisions on the basis of a vote that was taken over five years ago, where the question essentially was, "Does the majority want us to discriminate on the basis of age, or not discriminate on the basis of age?"

"If you want to discriminate on the basis of age, we can keep this game running for up to seven years. That's how long it will take to get to the Supreme Court of Canada, and by that time you will have bounced hundreds more off the seniority list, will little probability of the majority of them ever coming back to interfere with your career progression."

Isn't that the way in happened, Martin? You were there. You got the briefing. You heard it with your own ears. And the prediction of seven years? Deadly accurate. You pay good money and you get what you pay for, I guess.

[Martin Tamme]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

[accumulous]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

That's correct, up north here we will have relatively fewer guys leaving as we have no age restrictions whatsoever, and there is no BFOR for F/O's over 65, hence we will have relatively more stability on the cost side of the equation. If you're left seat on the B787, a couple of quick Sim sessions and you slide over to the right. If the PIC ICAO rule gets lifted then you carry on in the left seat. One example of that is a Canadian North B737 Captain who recently retired at 72, as they were flying domestic blocks.

[vic777]

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

Martin, it's like pulling teeth, ya gotta lighten up. The rock solid statistics would become known very soon. Here's how you do it, you start off with the same percentage, if that's too much you lower it, if it's not enough, you raise it. After a few years you're dead on. Not Rocket Science. Just windfall gains for AC.