These FP 60 individuals are the same ones who bought so many of us AC F/O's and RP's a "pint" in the spirt of comradship. We're all picking up the tab now, fighting these same dudes that were hired under the exact same rules we were. I understand the rules must change with the times, and they did..... and we're paying, however a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere. It would be nice to have our liability limited, as we've got kids to feed and mortgages to pay....just like they did when they were young AC pilots.
The irony lies in the fact that we F/O's and RP's are ACPA......and as ACPA pilots, we'll be expected to foot the bill for these greedy dudes like we never imagined.
Memories........ that 34-year, 340 Skipper making $240k, buying us a round at the Duke of York, hoisting that pint, looking us in the eye, and toasting our future success at Mainline. We never imagined as we took that pint with sincere thanks, they'd be demanding so much in return.
I'd like to propose a toast to you, and you know who you are........ but the lanuage I'd use in that "toast" wouldn't be remotely appropriate on a public forum.
P.S. The next time you accept "that free pint" from a 64 year old Captain who's working on his 43 year with AC, give a moments thought to whether or not this same individual will be heading up the new "fly past 65" cash-grab commitee and coming after the funds you're setting aside for your child's College education. Chances are, if they're not heading it up, they'll most definitely be a member.
Having followed this topic with interest for some time, it still surprises me to see emotion displacing facts. My understanding of "the exact same rules" is that the mandatory retirement exemption in the law prohibiting age discrimination was always conditional on age 60 being the "normal age of retirement." When that condition no longer existed, the exact same rules meant that mandatory retirement was contrary to law. Those were the rules, as I understand them. Reading the court decision that was issued in January, I see that the court found that the Tribunal erred in its determination of which pilots should be included in the comparator group used to establish normal age of retirement.dukepoint wrote:Ahhhh the irony. We're all picking up the tab now, fighting these same dudes that were hired under the exact same rules we were.
From what I can understand from that, it flows that neither the union nor the employer should have insisted on continuing to force mandatory retirement, sometime around 2005. Anyone complaining about having to pick up the tab now might want to take a good hard look at why there is a tab to pick up.
From the sidelines, for what its worth.
ACPA and the ACPA pilot group were fully aware of the growing financial liability with each passing month that they fought this inevitable change, but continued to fight it for the short-sighted purpose of removing as many pilots from the top as possible before they ran out of legal delaying tactics. ACPA and the pilots have always had full control over where that "line in the sand" would be but foolishly insisted on pushing it back as long as they possibly could.dukepoint wrote:I understand the rules must change with the times, and they did..... and we're paying, however a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere.
We as a group have no right to complain about where that line is now because we drew it there ourselves.
What if the claims are successful? What kind of numbers are we looking at? Will Air Canada or ACPA be able to pay the awards if they are wind up with a bunch of zeros on the end? How does a union pay, if it doesn't have the money?
Rockie wrote:ACPA and the ACPA pilot group were fully aware of the growing financial liability with each passing month that they fought this inevitable change, but continued to fight it for the short-sighted purpose of removing as many pilots from the top as possible before they ran out of legal delaying tactics. ACPA and the pilots have always had full control over where that "line in the sand" would be but foolishly insisted on pushing it back as long as they possibly could.dukepoint wrote:I understand the rules must change with the times, and they did..... and we're paying, however a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere.
We as a group have no right to complain about where that line is now because we drew it there ourselves.
Could junior pilots not be forgiven for not embracing 5 years of career stagnation years earlier? My personal apologies for not bending over backwards for that "multi hundred thousand dollar" favour far sooner. Maybe that was what that pint was for. Where were the FP60 individuals 10 years ago? Give me a break.
Everything was cool till you guys were shown the door, and were forced to pull your heads from the quarter mill. for 9 days/mo trough. The seniority progression rational for age 60 retirement has been beaten to death. Everyone knows the reason age 60 was the "agreed to" limit......to allow those junior a moment in the sun before enjoying retirement. That's how all seniority based system work. Period. It never had anything to do with human rights. Do your time as an FO or SO, then enjoy the last few years in the glow of max pay, vacation, ect..... then MOVE ON to make way for those waiting in the seniority line. Your friends are waiting....or are they your friends?
FP60 is a a cash grab, pure and simple. Even those two who returned to AC didn't last. As far as I'm aware, one didn't even qualify. Said individual likely never intended to fly again, and was taken off gaurd when offered the opportunity.
The money has to come from somewhere......the junior pilots, whom you all bought pints for on one layover or another. We have 5 years of career stagnation to look forward to that you never needed to experience. On top of the kick in the nuts we're all getting from the guys who "just can't find anything worthwhile to do with a 6-figure pension" in retirement, the FP60 dudes also want our cash. Where did this sense of entitlement come from exactly?
Embracing inevitable change is not necessary whereas dealing with it intelligently is. We didn't do that and we may soon be paying a very high, utterly predictable and unnecessary cost for that failure.dukepoint wrote:Could junior pilots not be forgiven for not embracing 5 years of career stagnation years earlier?
Here again a little bit of intelligent thought goes a long way. Do you think a judge will let us evade our financial obligations by declaring bankruptcy when there are millions of dollars sitting unused in a strike fund, and whatever shortfall remains can be dealt with via a special assessment to the membership?Lt. Daniel Kaffee wrote:Or maybe ACPA could go bankrupt and the judgement could go unsatisfied?
There is no contemplation within the Canada Labour Code that a union can declare bankruptcy, especially to avoid the adverse financial consequences of its prior decisions. Moreover, section 43 of the Code provides that a successor union acquires the rights and duties (i.e. financial obligations) of the preceding union.Lt. Daniel Kaffee wrote:Or maybe ACPA could go bankrupt and the judgement could go unsatisfied?
DP, Kaffee,dukepoint wrote:
"I understand the rules must change with the times, and they did..... and we're paying, however a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere"
" Where were the FP60 individuals 10 years ago? "
FP60 is a a cash grab, pure and simple.
Whether you are aware of it or not, the FlyPast60 movement has been fighting this issue since the early 2000's. Over a decade has past where it was always hoped cooler heads in the union would prevail and finally sit down and negotiate some sort of a resolution beneficial to all concerned.
Instead, they were kicked out of meetings, denied LEGALLY REQUIRED representation from their union, kicked off the ACPA forum, slandered at every opportunity by that "special bunch" and generally treated like pieces of shit every time a conversation on the matter surfaced.
Every other AC union solved the issue peacefully, with out law suits, with out mud slinging, respecting the rights of EVERY member they represented. They acted like ADULTS, like professionals! Every union that is except the pilots, who decided to fight against what every other educated person saw as the inevitable end. "They knew better" "The lawyers that would settle this hadn't been born yet" " We can stall this forever" was the common underlying theme out of the head shed.
Now that the end is finally in sight, the light at the end of the tunnel is finally starting to blind you, your answer is " How do we get out of this with out paying" "it's not my fault". Get a bloody grip son. YOUR union...aka YOU decided this will be fought till the bitter end. Well finally one way or the other this POS legal fight that should never have seen the light of day in the first place will be settled.
Literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of reasoned posts and millionsssssss of $$$ have come and gone with no resolve.
Did you ever ONCE stop and think that maybe, just maybe it wasn't all about money? That maybe, just maybe some pilots actually LOVED their jobs, were still healthy, were still competent and preferred not to quit just because some artificial line in the sand that might have made sense back in the unhealthy 1950's no longer had any relevance in the 21st century?
The stalling tactics have run the course. I personally hope the award is the final nail in the coffin for the embarrassment called ACPA and some people with brains pick up the pieces and create a PROFESSIONAL association the pilot group can be proud of instead of the kindergarten act it is has been for the last decade.
Started at AC, age 25, told quite clearly that retirement was mandatory at 60.
Flew for 35 years, rose up the seniority list as those ahead retired at 60, left medically, or took early retirement (a very small minority BTW).
Retired at 60 as per my "contract" as detailed at joining.
All the talk above about "moving forward, changing times, big bad union, etc." is just designed to cover the campaign to change the rules. I think it's like changing the wild cards just before you show your hand; the honourable thing is to respect the deal you agreed to.
An equitable solution would be to grandfather those who started under the Age60 rule into retiring at 60. All those joining later could fly til ......................
My two cents worth.
I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around.
Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those difficulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions.
Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind.
And thus with Raymond.
Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off.
Regards from the Towers
I have started off with a response from one of the moderators at PPRuNE when this thread that Ray was using to advance his views on FP 60 etc got Ray banned. I find it interesting that if a more thoughtful site would ban him but only history will be the judge in this case.
Right now it is before the courts so before the "victory dance" how about doing something novel take a deep breath and wait for the judgement and subsequent appeals before we have to endure the monochromatic pedestrian bleating of the few apologists who own this thread (or seems).
Unlike Idle Thrust I joined late in life and never got to a 35 year service date but like Idle Thrust I had no problem keeping the concept of the then "contractually agreed" date of retirement for the reasons discussed. Therefore, what have I observed since my decommissioning I see a lot of my former colleagues who look like death warmed over. The so called 9 days a month of productive Asia flying is taking a personal toll on them. So what is it the 15 hour duty day? Eating at irregular hours? Trying crew rest at a cabin altitude of 7,000 feet (hypoxia)? Gross circadian rhythm upset? The use of prescription sleeping aids on layover? Alternatively, as my surgeon friend says "sitting is the new smoking"????
For myself it took me a year before I could sleep through the nights again and I have lost 13 kg because of now eating proper foods at the right time. Nevertheless, the greatest personal impact for me is seeing the preponderance of emails of obituaries of people I have none who have flown west and the majority is below 65 years of age.
Idle Thrust I have found the delicious irony of those who made it to the top had their personal "conversion on the road to Damascus" when they got there. The most ironic story for me was the individual who allegedly called up the late Ross Stevenson (this was the first person to challenge the retirement age) late at night and berated him for being greedy and holding up the junior pilots like him. The article appeared as "A pilot’s quest to remain at the top BRENT JANG — TRANSPORTATION REPORTER from Saturday's Globe and Mail Published Friday, Mar. 11, 2011 7:30PM EST". I am sure it was used by public relations media as a case on how not to make a case as it seemed to read as self aggrandizement at best narcissism at worst.
For Duke Point yes I was guilty on many layovers of footing the bar bills and raising a glass to my junior colleagues but I meant it and was profoundly happy to cross the bar (the dreaded age 60) and not look back except for the deepest respect for the colleagues I had the honour of working for. So even if you have the "pleasure" of working with a FP 60 type you can still learn from them. Above all please consider this prime directive is to stay above room temperature so keep your health, be involved with your family and the rest is………………….
In closing history will be the final arbitrator of this "experiment" and a lesson for all to learn from the companies unions down.
Get new legal representation if your lawyers are advising you to continue this.
They can't. They are in far too deep and they are too close to the end not to play the final "hail Mary" at the court of appeal. After that they will have to let the cards fall where they may. Meanwhile, the ones who started the union down this path of self-destruction years ago are now nowhere to be seen. Someone else's problem.teacher wrote: Get new legal representation if your lawyers are advising you to continue this.
No lawyer in their right mind would have advised ACPA to pursue such a blatantly lost cause telling them they stood a snowball's chance in hell of preventing the end of age related mandatory retirement. Any 12 year old with half a brain could have told them they didn't stand a chance of preventing it.Morry Bund wrote:They can't. They are in far too deep and they are too close to the end not to play the final "hail Mary" at the court of appeal. After that they will have to let the cards fall where they may. Meanwhile, the ones who started the union down this path of self-destruction years ago are now nowhere to be seen. Someone else's problem.teacher wrote: Get new legal representation if your lawyers are advising you to continue this.
ACPA's goal all along was to delay the process as it pertained to Air Canada as long as possible to remove as many people from the top of the list as they could before the hammer fell. They did this fully aware of the financial liability growing each and every month as more pilots added their names to the human rights complaint, and I'm sure their lawyers went home every night shaking their heads at the short-sightedness stupidity of our strategy.
There is no one to blame for this except ourselves.
Is it true that the number 1 guy has been divorced 5 times?Old fella wrote:Granted, there are individuals who do not have much equality in their pension plans due length of service, as well, those who went through some personal difficulties in their lives (divorce etc.).
Is it true you were kicked out of grade 3 for not shaving?pelmet wrote:
Is it true that the number 1 guy has been divorced 5 times?
The answer to both these questions have absolutely no relevance to the subject matter!
Actually I heard it was 23 wives and 118 kids to support. If we are going to start stupid rumor mongering lets at least give the guy some hero status !!