AC Pilots Successfully Defend Air Ontario Pilots Lawsuit.

[Reza]

I worked at AO during the mid-eighties. It wasn't long after the the buyout by Air Canada that discussions of seniority list mergers etc. started to take place. Even during those early years ( well prior to the AO lawsuit ) discussions were initiated which would have allowed the AO pilots to join the Air Canada list...at the bottom....around 1988 if and when openings became available. But no, the AO people dug in and would have none of it. For some of us it seemed like a foolish mistake.

Moving forward a small hardline core of AO pilots were able to convince a much larger group of AO pilots that the best way ahead financially was on the backs of the Air Canada group rather than progressing their careers through hard work, self improvement and a realistic attitude. Too bad the lawsuit failed and it sure is amazing how old the lads got standing around waiting for the result.

The appeal also sounds like another foolish mistake. I think if you dig deep enough however you will find that the group of AO pilots who initiated this thing have no choice. They have made promises to their colleagues which cannot be kept and the only way out is to prolong this thing as much as possible in order to save face. The lawyers will have no problem stretching things for them.

For reference I left AO long ago and have never regretted it..nor do I work for Air Canada.

[LuckyPilot]

I can't believe ACPA would offer no costs in exchange for no appeal at this stage. That seems like a really good deal for the AO guys. What really belies belief is that the AO would turn that offer down.

This case was clearly successful on its merits and I really see no grounds for an appeal.

Their Lawyers have convinced them that the same offer will be on the table, even if the appeal is unsuccessful. Boy! talk about bad money, after good. Personally, I was willing to let it go, not so much anymore. This group of AO pilots would have been estatic to see myself and many others in finaicial duress. Time to switch it up.

[MackTheKnife]

On the subject of funding,

A number of years back an F/O and I starting talking about this lawsuit in cruise one day. Since he was a recent recruit from AO, I asked him about a particular person I knew years earlier who I hadn't seen in ages.

His reply was rather shocking. After several colorful adjectives describing the guy and how much he disliked him, this is what he said:

***** told him that he had his will changed to make the lawsuit his beneficiary. OMG...Here was a person who was so bent and twisted on revenge he was willing to let his family suffer rather than admit he/they had made a horrible error in judgement in the first place.

Now of course we will never really know whether he did or did not do such a stupid thing, the mere thought of someone actually thinking that, let alone acting on it, drove home to me the mentality of the group we were dealing with.

And now almost 20 years later it seems not much has changed.

According to Rays initial post this farce has been to the Supreme courts twice where they lost both times.

Is there EVER an end to this BS appeal process in the Canadian legal system??

MTK

[swervin]

Mack,

I think things have changed dramatically for the AO guys. From what I understand most want the appeal to end... We'll soon see...

[Raymond Hall]

Without commenting on the merits of the dispute, one way or another at this point,
I can provide a little information on the issue of "costs."

First of all, "costs" are not the same as the fees that lawyers charge for their work (in most cases, by a long shot!).

They are usually much less, and are prescribed according to "schedules" published by the courts.

The various court systems have a number of different "schedules" of costs that allocate a specified fee for each of the
various components completed throughout the dispute—attendance at a hearing, filing a motion,
filing a reply, etc. etc. etc. Each step in the process results in a record of costs that tallies toward the final assessment,
which is reviewable by the court.

At the end of the day, after judgment, with the attendant award of costs, counsel for the winning side sends a Bill of Costs to counsel for the losing side, itemizing each event and the appropriate fee, per the published court fee schedules.

Although the costs do not equate to any amount approximating the fees charged for the work done by counsel,
they are not insignificant. A good example is a fairly recent case involving Air Canada's
dispute at the Toronto (Island) Billy Bishop Airport.

Here is the court's confirmation of the costs billing. Remember, this is the Bill of Costs for a dispute that
took place over approximately one year, not 17 years:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201 ... c1335.html

Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, 2010 FC 1335

[19] In the result, Toronto Port Authority is awarded $705,131.35 for costs and taxes
and $194,851.15 for disbursements which, in total, is $899,982.45. Porter is awarded $836,248.65 for costs
and taxes and $156,422.88 for disbursements which, in total, is $992,671.53.
These awards include applicable taxes."

One of the key elements of the final costs award is a previous "offer to settle." The offer to settle can make continuing with a marginal case very problematic. In some jurisdictions, but not all jurisdictions, if one party at a fixed date makes a valid binding offer in writing to the other party to settle the dispute for a fixed specified dollar amount and the other party declines to accept the offer and ultimately winds up either losing the case or being awarded damages in an amount less than the offer of settlement, the final costs award is then doubled, commencing from the date of the rejected offer of settlement.

Big bucks, big risks, and a huge incentive to not proceed with a case that is unlikely to be won. That is by design.

[MackTheKnife]

ultimately winds up either losing the case or being awarded damages

And there in lies the problem. They lost in the Supreme courts twice. ...And are appealing yet again !!!!

What / when does the Canadian legal system reach the point of " ultimately " ?

MTK

[hithere]

So why the hell does the Supreme Court of Canada even agree to hear this futile case?

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

Guys...

The previous SCC rulings have been on points of law within the case, the SCC has not ruled on the overall case. The boys can appeal all they want, they have to get permission, they have to make an argument that there was an error in law made at the trial. The appeal courts are reluctant to overturn a decision, and even if leave to appeal is given, the appellant is facing an uphill struggle.

I think the litigants are "p!ssing up a proverbial rope" here but there's nothing like throwing bad money after bad.....

The reports that they (the appellants (AO Pilots)) were given advice by a retired SCC justice that they had a case if proof that one can find a lawyer to support any cause or case!

the Lt.

[MUSKEG]

And this is why Big Red will gradually become little red. To many rotten apples in the box.

[ALPAisAwesome]

Well, I guess they could have just bent over and took it with the crowbar that was offered.
I'm not part of this but some still antagonize by saying things like," Without crunching the numbers too much, just based on my seniority, I would think had they taken BOTL they would be holding left seat 330 now. Maybe even left seat 777."
The above should be used to determine the amount of damages awarded.

I was just answering a question someone had asked.

Anyway, the Picher List would never have been implemented anyway. Hollis Harris was the Air Canada CEO at the time. He was not going to allow a merged list.

Here is an excerpt from Madam Pepall's decision.

"Mr. Harris, now retired, was the CEO of Air Canada at the relevant time and was a credible and forceful witness. He also had had considerable experience in the airline business and with mergers. He was unequivocal in his evidence that he had the authority to decide whether to accept the Award and that he would not. 'It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said... While it may be that some Air Canada management representatives were prepared to discuss a merged list, this does not supplant Mr. Harris' firm conviction that a merged list was unacceptable. He was the decision maker. 'As he testified, 'We could not operate the mainline carrier with a seniority list that had all the Connector pilots on it.'... I reject the Plaintiffs' contention that Mr. Harris had lack of recall that impeded his ability to provide reliable evidence. He was an impressive witness who made no effort to reconstruct events.... his evidence was not impeached and indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel did not even try to impeach his testimony."

[Paragraphs 459, 460]

Lots of debate on the other forum about whether there is an agenda to merge (DOH or BOTL) with our bros and sis's at Jazz. Found this.
I think it's relevant because MR will have to decide if AC is going to allow it or not. HH said no way.

[Jimmy_Hoffa]

Well, I guess they could have just bent over and took it with the crowbar that was offered.
I'm not part of this but some still antagonize by saying things like," Without crunching the numbers too much, just based on my seniority, I would think had they taken BOTL they would be holding left seat 330 now. Maybe even left seat 777."
The above should be used to determine the amount of damages awarded.

I was just answering a question someone had asked.

Anyway, the Picher List would never have been implemented anyway. Hollis Harris was the Air Canada CEO at the time. He was not going to allow a merged list.

Here is an excerpt from Madam Pepall's decision.

"Mr. Harris, now retired, was the CEO of Air Canada at the relevant time and was a credible and forceful witness. He also had had considerable experience in the airline business and with mergers. He was unequivocal in his evidence that he had the authority to decide whether to accept the Award and that he would not. 'It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said... While it may be that some Air Canada management representatives were prepared to discuss a merged list, this does not supplant Mr. Harris' firm conviction that a merged list was unacceptable. He was the decision maker. 'As he testified, 'We could not operate the mainline carrier with a seniority list that had all the Connector pilots on it.'... I reject the Plaintiffs' contention that Mr. Harris had lack of recall that impeded his ability to provide reliable evidence. He was an impressive witness who made no effort to reconstruct events.... his evidence was not impeached and indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel did not even try to impeach his testimony."

[Paragraphs 459, 460]

Lots of debate on the other forum about whether there is an agenda to merge (DOH or BOTL) with our bros and sis's at Jazz. Found this.
I think it's relevant because MR will have to decide if AC is going to allow it or not. HH said no way.

Just think of it as one last gift from the legacy of KV and MM to “Capture the Flying” and improve the conditions later…

-Jimmy

[cdnavater]

I was just answering a question someone had asked.

Anyway, the Picher List would never have been implemented anyway. Hollis Harris was the Air Canada CEO at the time. He was not going to allow a merged list.

Here is an excerpt from Madam Pepall's decision.

"Mr. Harris, now retired, was the CEO of Air Canada at the relevant time and was a credible and forceful witness. He also had had considerable experience in the airline business and with mergers. He was unequivocal in his evidence that he had the authority to decide whether to accept the Award and that he would not. 'It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said... While it may be that some Air Canada management representatives were prepared to discuss a merged list, this does not supplant Mr. Harris' firm conviction that a merged list was unacceptable. He was the decision maker. 'As he testified, 'We could not operate the mainline carrier with a seniority list that had all the Connector pilots on it.'... I reject the Plaintiffs' contention that Mr. Harris had lack of recall that impeded his ability to provide reliable evidence. He was an impressive witness who made no effort to reconstruct events.... his evidence was not impeached and indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel did not even try to impeach his testimony."

[Paragraphs 459, 460]

Lots of debate on the other forum about whether there is an agenda to merge (DOH or BOTL) with our bros and sis's at Jazz. Found this.
I think it's relevant because MR will have to decide if AC is going to allow it or not. HH said no way.

Just think of it as one last gift from the legacy of KV and MM to “Capture the Flying” and improve the conditions later…

-Jimmy

For what it’s worth, I have not heard a single Jazz pilot talk about this in reference to AC pilots joining/merging with ALPA.
Only when they talk about being passed by for OTS and even then it’s few who’ve mentioned it.
Honestly, even if AC were to buy Jazz, I would prefer to keep my spot on my list, medium fish in a medium pond, instead of small fish in a big pond…with only 400ish above me, I should be top 50 before I retire, not on your list though

[Fanblade]

For what it’s worth, I have not heard a single Jazz pilot talk about this in reference to AC pilots joining/merging with ALPA.
Only when they talk about being passed by for OTS and even then it’s few who’ve mentioned it.
Honestly, even if AC were to buy Jazz, I would prefer to keep my spot on my list, medium fish in a medium pond, instead of small fish in a big pond…with only 400ish above me, I should be top 50 before I retire, not on your list though

Jazz ran under the banner of AC regional and before that Air BC, Air Ontario, Air Alliance and Air Nova. All were wholly owned subsidiaries of AC prior to CCAA. In fact the environment H Harris is quoted in above, is from when these companies were wholly owned.

Harris’s comment.

It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said

Air Canada’s cost structure can not run under a certain seat number viably. AC needs a feeder airline. If AC lost Jazz’s cost structure it would need to create another regional. They won’t be doing this voluntarily.

[fish4life]

For what it’s worth, I have not heard a single Jazz pilot talk about this in reference to AC pilots joining/merging with ALPA.
Only when they talk about being passed by for OTS and even then it’s few who’ve mentioned it.
Honestly, even if AC were to buy Jazz, I would prefer to keep my spot on my list, medium fish in a medium pond, instead of small fish in a big pond…with only 400ish above me, I should be top 50 before I retire, not on your list though

Jazz ran under the banner of AC regional and before that Air BC, Air Ontario, Air Alliance and Air Nova. All were wholly owned subsidiaries of AC prior to CCAA. In fact the environment H Harris is quoted in above, is from when these companies were wholly owned.

Harris’s comment.

It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said

Air Canada’s cost structure can not run under a certain seat number viably. AC needs a feeder airline. If AC lost Jazz’s cost structure it would need to create another regional. They won’t be doing this voluntarily.

That’s what they want you to believe, US airlines are paying their regional pilots more than AC pilots and their cost structure seems to work.

[Fanblade]

For what it’s worth, I have not heard a single Jazz pilot talk about this in reference to AC pilots joining/merging with ALPA.
Only when they talk about being passed by for OTS and even then it’s few who’ve mentioned it.
Honestly, even if AC were to buy Jazz, I would prefer to keep my spot on my list, medium fish in a medium pond, instead of small fish in a big pond…with only 400ish above me, I should be top 50 before I retire, not on your list though

Jazz ran under the banner of AC regional and before that Air BC, Air Ontario, Air Alliance and Air Nova. All were wholly owned subsidiaries of AC prior to CCAA. In fact the environment H Harris is quoted in above, is from when these companies were wholly owned.

Harris’s comment.

It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said

Air Canada’s cost structure can not run under a certain seat number viably. AC needs a feeder airline. If AC lost Jazz’s cost structure it would need to create another regional. They won’t be doing this voluntarily.

That’s what they want you to believe, US airlines are paying their regional pilots more than AC pilots and their cost structure seems to work.

So long as they can pass along the cost to the consumer. Others routes are repatriated by increasing the size of the aircraft and reducing frequency. Often that doesn’t work and routes get abandoned.

Pilot wages are only a piece of CASM. A small piece.

Higher regional wages will incentivize less jobs at the regionals. With that said regionals are still required. The western US and Canada are not Europe. 80 seat aircraft are still required and can not viably run under the cost structure of a mainline.

Legacy airlines are not going to abandon the 80 seat market in North America. Nor can they do it cost effectively in house.

[Raymond Hall]

I see that this thread has been resurrected. Please note that the links in the first few pages are no longer valid, as I shut down the Fly Past 60 web site several years ago. You can find the cases referred to in those links by searching www.canlii.org, which is the legal database created by the Law Societies across Canada.