FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Big Pistons Forever
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4987
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#151 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:46 pm

So what happens if you lose the appeal ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#152 Post by Doug Moore » Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:12 pm

Fanblade wrote:Doug,
Big thumbs up. Bang on.
All right! I didn’t want to press on if I didn’t understand your position.

I believe you had mentioned somewhere above that any actuary would understand where you were coming from and, if I didn’t mention it, I am no actuary! However, I do believe that I have a very basic understanding of actuarial assumptions and for what purposes they are used. For instance, when calculating pension parameters, actuarial assumptions are used for the purposes of calculating risk assessment in order to determine how much money will be required to provide a specific benefit, at a specific age, for a specific time. Absent all actuarial assumptions, Pension Plan administrators would have no idea how much money they need to have on hand (invested) in order to pay their pensioners each and every month.

I am not convinced, however, that applying any actuarial-type assumptions to an AC pilot’s future earnings has any value going forward. As I mentioned earlier, too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career to allow any reasonable prediction of what a pilot’s career expectations/income will, or will not be. Who knows who will bid what – and when? Can one assume that every pilot will always bid the next highest position with zero below? How does one apply assumptions to address those who bid the most senior position on junior aircraft or, a junior position on senior equipment? I have known senior pilots to remain in junior positions (their preference) until retirement. How can one apply such bidding variables into the model you have described? How can assumptions be developed for pilot lay-offs or a merger where everyone's expectations require adjustmentI – how can one develop assumptions to accomodate those variables into the model you have described in order to predict lost income (20-30 years out) at the end of a career?

I agree with you that one could take a “snapshot” at the moment the retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 and see, using your model, that the junior guy will suffer an income loss at the end of the day, all things being equal and fixed forever at that moment. But tomorrow, next month, next year, brings change. Perhaps the airline will double in size, maybe retrench, maybe go out of business. Who knows? How can one develop, let alone apply, assumptions to address such life variables into the model you have described and predict with any degree of accuracy income loss or gain? I don’t believe you can and have it hold any meaning.

The way I see it today, mulling over how badly or how good things are as a result of the increase in the retirement age is a Mug’s Game. Somewhere above you indicated that you have accepted this change in retirement age (life happens) but have difficulty accepting that this change was/is for the betterment of everyone. Well, bad or good, it is what it is. I believe that a great future lies ahead for all pilots at AC – best to focus on that, in my view.

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Doug Moore on Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#153 Post by Raymond Hall » Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:17 pm

Big Pistons Forever wrote:So what happens if you lose the appeal ?
There are actually three appeals, one filed by each of the employer, the union and the affected pilots. The only higher court than the Federal Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court of Canada, and one must be granted leave to appeal, by the Court. It hears only about 80 cases a year, so getting leave is very problematic, given the number of applications. One of the requirements for granting leave is that the legal issue be one of significant national importance.

Having said that, any of the three parties could apply for leave.

We expect the FCA to deal with these issues with finality (i.e. correctly state the law in respect of the facts).

I cannot speak on behalf of either the employer of the union, as to their probable action in the event of losing the appeals. If they lose, we expect the FCA to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a final decision, based on the reasons in the decision.

For the Coalition, as with any appeal the next step in the process is a decision made by the clients, with the help and recommendation of counsel. That invariably turns on the wording and reasoning of the decision, and the perceived likelihood of success at the next level.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Raymond Hall on Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#154 Post by Rockie » Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:19 pm

Instead of insulting people and placing undue faith in graphs and spreadsheets produced with incorrect assumptions, let's try a thought experiment instead.

Old system:

1. 25 year old pilot.
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 60
4. Retires at age 60 with seniority number 50

New system. Pilot sits in current seat until 2017 when he is:

1. 30 years old
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 65
4. Retires at age 65 with seniority number 50.

Can anybody dispute this comparison? I'll just assume not.

Ok...so, In 2017 the pilot's advancement continues as before and he spends exactly the same amount of time in successively higher seats as he would have pre-2012 and eventually retires with the same seniority number after the same number of years service. Can anybody dispute that?

The pilot's career has been identical from 2017 until retirement 35 years later at age 65 as it would have been from 2012 until retirement 35 years later at age 60. Any disputes yet?

Now the question. If his career is identical for those 35 years in both cases how is it he earned less money? Does he get paid less for each position because of the delay in getting it? Does ten years left seat A320 pay less if those ten years occur five years later?

The problem with your spreadsheet and ACPA's financial impact study Fanblade is that it assumes normal uninterrupted career progression as a baseline plus another five years tacked onto the back end of your career. But those pesky guys above you on the list also get to stick around keeping you from advancing for those five years and that's what you consider your loss. In other words you want your cake and eat it too. But it doesn't work that way. Our fixed seniority list ensures that unaffected career rate of advancement to the top, and adding additional years to the career cannot co-exist so any calculation using both in the same baseline is invalid from the start. You get one or the other - never both.

Nobody is taking a loss, everybody is making extra if they choose to go to 65. It's just not making as much extra as guys in higher paying seats. Perhaps if ACPA had made the right decision years ago - or at any time between 2006 and 2012 - that inequity could have been proactively addressed before the law changed - as everybody knew it would - and it was too late. But we know that didn't happen and we know why.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#155 Post by Fanblade » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:17 am

Rockie wrote:Instead of insulting people and placing undue faith in graphs and spreadsheets produced with incorrect assumptions, let's try a thought experiment instead.

Old system:

1. 25 year old pilot.
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 60
4. Retires at age 60 with seniority number 50

New system. Pilot sits in current seat until 2017 when he is:

1. 30 years old
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 65
4. Retires at age 65 with seniority number 50.

Can anybody dispute this comparison? I'll just assume not.
Rockie,

You aren't using numbers to prove your point. Instead you are using logic which is flawed. It's unfortunate because you could have simply taken the very rudimentary spread sheet I created and adapted it to your scenario.

I have done it for you. (Attached)

Perhaps this will help your understanding of what it transpiring. Notice on the sheet how many years each scenario to the right remains behind the benchmark.

Scenario 1 has 5 years behind the benchmark and loses 7% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 2 has 10 years behind the benchmark and loses 14% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 3 has 15 years behind the benchmark and loses 20% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 4 has 20 years behind the benchmark and loses 27% of their pay to age 60.

Only scenario 1 and 2 ( top of seniority list) produce compensation to age 65 greater than the benchmark.

Both scenario 3 and 4 (bottom of list) produce less compensation to age 65 than the benchmark, even though they worked 5 years longer.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
Rockies demo.xlsx
(10.73 KiB) Downloaded 68 times

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#156 Post by Rockie » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:36 am

How exactly is my logic flawed? You dispute my logic so how would example 1 differ from example 2? Leave amounts out of it since I'm sure even you can agree ten years in a particular seat pays the same in each example. Or maybe that's where your mistake is?

Where exactly is the flaw in my logic? after 2017 where exactly is your career differing from the old rules? Where exactly are you making less money?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Rockie on Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#157 Post by Fanblade » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:41 am

Doug Moore wrote:
Fanblade wrote:Doug,
Big thumbs up. Bang on.
All right! I didn’t want to press on if I didn’t understand your position.

I believe you had mentioned somewhere above that any actuary would understand where you were coming from and, if I didn’t mention it, I am no actuary! However, I do believe that I have a very basic understanding of actuarial assumptions and for what purposes they are used. For instance, when calculating pension parameters, actuarial assumptions are used for the purposes of calculating risk assessment in order to determine how much money will be required to provide a specific benefit, at a specific age, for a specific time. Absent all actuarial assumptions, Pension Plan administrators would have no idea how much money they need to have on hand (invested) in order to pay their pensioners each and every month.

I am not convinced, however, that applying any actuarial-type assumptions to an AC pilot’s future earnings has any value going forward. As I mentioned earlier, too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career to allow any reasonable prediction of what a pilot’s career expectations/income will, or will not be. Who knows who will bid what – and when? Can one assume that every pilot will always bid the next highest position with zero below? How does one apply assumptions to address those who bid the most senior position on junior aircraft or, a junior position on senior equipment? I have known senior pilots to remain in junior positions (their preference) until retirement. How can one apply such bidding variables into the model you have described? I have lived through a 33-month lay-off and survived 5 mergers – how can one apply those variables into the model you have described in order to predict lost income?

I agree with you that one could take a “snapshot” at the moment the retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 and see, using your model, that the junior guy will suffer an income loss at the end of the day, all things being equal and fixed forever at that moment. But tomorrow, next month, next year, brings change. Perhaps the airline will double in size, maybe retrench, maybe go out of business. Who knows? How can one develop, let alone apply, assumptions to address such life variables into the model you have described and predict with any degree of accuracy income loss or gain? I don’t believe you can and have it hold any meaning.

The way I see it today, mulling over how badly or how good things are as a result of the increase in the retirement age is a Mug’s Game. Somewhere above you indicated that you have accepted this change in retirement age (life happens) but have difficulty accepting that this change was/is for the betterment of everyone. Well, bad or good, it is what it is. I believe that a great future lies ahead for all pilots at AC – best to focus on that, in my view.

Cheers,
Doug,

I agree with you to a point. It's now moot. Absolutely nothing we can do about it.


There is the issue of accuracy that has meaning to me. But closer to the litigation at hand, the Federal courts rulings look as if they may be looking at this. Not to change my lot in life of course. That's done. Rather to look at how much financial harm really took place for the litigants against the backdrop of what happened everywhere else as a result of the change.

The litigants are the financial benchmark prior to change. Very few will do better financially than the litigants. The vast majority will do worse financially. Even if the courts find that the litigants where discriminated against, was there financial harm to them as a result?

I'm no lawyer. So maybe I'm missing something about proving harm. Like I said earlier. From the cheap seats? It looks like the benchmark is pissed off that they were not scenario 1 and want compensation based on that all the while refusing to look at scenario 2 through 4.

I'm happy to hear however that the federal court sees it differently than the litigants.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#158 Post by Fanblade » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:49 am

Rockie wrote:How exactly is my logic flawed? You dispute my logic so how would example 1 differ from example 2? Leave amounts out of it since I'm sure even you can agree ten years in a particular seat pays the same in each example. Or maybe that's where your mistake is?

where exactly is the flaw in my logic?
Rockie,

You can't leave math out. At the end of the day the math either validates or invalidates the hypothesis. Leaving out the math means you want your hypothesis to stand without validation.

I think I have done enough to provide you with not only explanation, pictures and even a tool (spreadsheet) to help you understand.

Like I said a page or so ago. 2+2=4. No matter how much you yell and scream that it equals 5 won't change the fact it equals 4.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#159 Post by Rockie » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:53 am

Your picture proved my point, not yours, and it was dead simple compared to a spreadsheet you created yourself containing irrelevant numbers derived by unknown calculations that themselves are based on flawed assumptions. I've shown you where you're making your mistake, so show me where I'm making mine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

MackTheKnife
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:54 am
Location: The 'Wet Coast"

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#160 Post by MackTheKnife » Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:53 pm

Rockie wrote:compared to a spreadsheet you created yourself containing irrelevant numbers "........ based on flawed assumptions. .

And there in lies the fallacies with Fanblades theories IMO.

They are based on every pilot have a constant linear career when the reality is anything but. With over 3000 pilots having almost as many different reasons for bidding equipment types, which are then reviewed and changed nearly every 6 months, it is literally impossible to project anyones career earnings.

The fact of the matter is that neither side of this discussion means squat in the big picture. The ONLY thing that matters is what the courts will hopefully soon decide based on legal arguments, not totally irrelevant emotional ones.

MTK
---------- ADS -----------
  
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#161 Post by Fanblade » Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:19 pm

[quote] Rockie wrote:
How can you have the [i]same[/i] career [i]plus[/i] an extra five years and earn less? Is there some kind of magic going on here?

Fanblade wrote:

No magic. Just the clash of a very deeply ingrained preconceived expected result, with reality. You did say prove it. Three times in one post I believe.

You have two choices now.

1) figure out why your preconceived expection was in error.

Or

2) Declare Fanblade is performing witchcraft, form a mob, and burn him at the stake for blasphemy.
[/quote]

Quotes not working for me for some reason

-Declare Fan blade is performing witchcraft - done
- Form a mob - in progress

I'm kinda curious to see how much traction you can get. It will speak volumes.

And no MTK, I don't think the issue is moot. It is Germain to the topic of financial harm. Were you harmed if you did financially better than virtually everyone who follows you? Were you harmed if you did equal to everyone who proceeded you?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#162 Post by Rockie » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:18 pm

Now I think I understand Fanblade. You aren't losing and you know it, you just aren't gaining as much as people senior to you like I've already mentioned several times and it pisses you off. So much in fact you characterize it as a loss when you know perfectly well in real dollars every level of the pilot group will make more than before in the course of their career. Well, here is an explanation that you may not be aware of that will bring you up to speed on that.

In 2006 senior Air Canada management knew that mandatory retirement at age 60 was inevitably ending. I know this because one of them told me so. In 2006 the ACPA MEC knew that mandatory retirement at age 60 was inevitably ending. I know that too because one of them told me so at around the same time as the management guy. So if everybody knew it was ending why did ACPA fight so hard spending your money, exposing you to so much potential liability, and dooming you to five years seniority stagnation without any effort to mitigate the inevitable consequences that you are erroneously calling a "loss"?

The only possible explanation is that they wanted to delay the rule change as long as possible to drop as many people off the top before it happened to climb everybody as high on the list as they could before the list stagnated.

It was a choice they made knowing that they were trading one for the other. It was a choice the pilots made wittingly or unwittingly by supporting ACPA. They could have acted proactively as so many people futilely urged them to do to mitigate the so called "losses" you keep misrepresenting, but they didn't. The pilots didn't.

The inequity you misleadingly call "losses" are there by ACPA's choice, the pilot's choice, and your choice by not insisting ACPA address it before the law changed.

You gained seniority by stalling the end of mandatory retirement as long as you could and you will be better off financially both in terms of career earnings, and if you're like the vast majority of other people hired in the last 15 years in retirement income as well. Your whining about the flip side of that situation you helped bring about is wasted on me and everybody else who tried to prevent it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#163 Post by Fanblade » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:35 pm

Rockie wrote:Now I think I understand Fanblade. You aren't losing and you know it, you just aren't gaining as much as people senior to you like I've already mentioned several times and it pisses you off. So much in fact you characterize it as a loss when you know perfectly well in real dollars every level of the pilot group will make more than before in the course of their career.
Nope. I stand by everything I posted. You are very very misinformed. Worse yet, making no effort to correct it.

But keep going. The witch hunt has only begun. If you don't understand something it must be an illusion, a trick or a slight of hand, right?

Still curious how many takers you will get. Surely there are at least a few math inclined individuals in this place.

Anyway. I recognize in life there are some people who will never listen no matter what is put before them. Not that they cant. They simply won't. When you run into those people you have to accept the situation as it is. Pointless.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Norwegianwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#164 Post by Norwegianwood » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:08 pm

Let me ask a question.........

If all pilots hired prior to Dec 2012 signed on knowing the "normal retirement" day was the first day of the month following their 60th birthday, why then are they (all of you) not retiring and the pilots hired after Dec 2012 then retire at age 65!

I only ask this because............

NW
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#165 Post by Rockie » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:50 pm

This kind of denial is why our pilot group gets dictated to by events and other people possessing a firmer grasp of reality. We are the architects of what Fanblade erroneously calls an unjust "loss", and he's unfortunately not alone in his complete lack of understanding on how we got here or the consequences of our own actions. There are still people who mistakingly think the FP60 group is suing all the rest. They have no understanding of the human rights tribunal, the nature of the complaints or the actual history of how this all transpired. If asked most of our pilots still do not understand or accept that mandatory age based retirement is a human rights issue, and they still have no clue of the actual and potential consequences of their choices on this issue since 2006. It's not likely ACPA will educate them either.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#166 Post by Morry Bund » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:41 pm

Fanblade wrote:There is the issue of accuracy that has meaning to me. But closer to the litigation at hand, the Federal courts rulings look as if they may be looking at this. Not to change my lot in life of course. That's done. Rather to look at how much financial harm really took place for the litigants against the backdrop of what happened everywhere else as a result of the change.
The court is looking at this, but not for the reason that you suggest.

The union put forward the proposition that the potential loss in career income expectations to the junior pilots as a result of ending mandatory retirement is a bfor, a bona fide occupational requirement. The tribunal rejected that proposition, but the federal court overturned the tribunal decision on that point. In overturning the tribunal's decision the court used over 100 pages of its 150 page decision to work around Supreme Court of Canada precedent on bfor stating the exact opposite.

The question as to whether potential career income loss qualifies as a bfor is a legal question, not a factual question. Either it does or it doesn’t.

If it does not qualify as a bfor, nothing about the potential loss to the income of the junior pilots is relevant to the decision that the court has to make, regardless of how much the potential loss may be.

To you, the issue is obviously one of fairness. I'm OK with that. However, to the court the issue that must be decided is not about fairness. It is about whether the round peg (loss of career income expectation) fits into the square hole (bfor exemption), because the legal determination that the court must make will have ramifications far beyond anyone involved in this case alone.
---------- ADS -----------
  

777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#167 Post by 777longhaul » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:04 am

BFOR Please go to the FP60 website to see the excellent easy to follow with your finger graph, that Raymond Hall produced for everyone, and I do mean everyone, to follow. It is a work of art, and it does not allow any misunderstandings, as to what is legal and what is not.

If.....BFOR was legally available to acpa, then, acpa, would have used it, to stop the company, (AC) and itself, (assuming acpa knows itself) from allowing the pilots to fly past 60, after the rule change came into effect in Dec 2012. They could have maintained the discriminatory age practice of forcing every pilot to go at 60, instead of the new ICAO rule, (NOV 2014) at age 65. BUT they did not! But why you say???

But wait.....

acpa did not use the BFOR rule, when the Federal Government changed the rule. (Dec 2012 in effect) They accepted the rule change period. AC, and acpa totally uncontested, with open arm's, the rule change, and DID NOT challenge the rule change. If....acpa had that legal tool available to them, (BFOR) then ask yourself, why did they not use it to keep the forced retirement at 60?? It was good enough to get rid of the 200 members in good standing, (FP 60 Coalition) so it should be good enough to force every pilot to retire at 60, as the legal BFOR definition, allows the law to be circumvented, by the very nature of the definition of BFOR.

Answer:

acpa, the select group inside of it, (numerous MEC's over many years) and others that were riding on their coat tails, have rolled the dice, gambled that they would get rid of 300 to 500 pilots, off of the seniority list, so they could "jump ahead" on the new rule change. AND they did. Has worked so far. The legal errors were unbelievable, they could only be considered as back door, out the front door results. The blind scales of justice, NOT.

Now, acpa is not using the BFOR to fight the rule change, they accepted the rule change, but.....they do not accept, that they should not be able to use the BFOR tool, to fight the 200 pilots who were ALL members in good standing, paying huge union dues, (max dues) for years, in the grass roots union. What a JOKE! You either have it, or you don't.

Either you have the legal right to use BFOR, or you don't. It is not a floating law, that can be used, or docked somewhere convenient, when not needed, and or NOT wanted. Either it is under the spot light, and legal, or it is in the dark, and not legal.

Hopefully, the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, will be able to grasp the huge legal errors that the Federal Court inserted into to its award, allowing acpa, the last ditch effort, to use the BFOR argument. If you read the BFOR qualifications, acpa is not even in the same universe when it comes to qualifying for BFOR. Interesting that AC does not qualify, yet acpa thinks as a union, and not an employer, that they can use the distorted FC ruling, (that award, must have come as a surprise, even to acpa) to stop the FP60 group, solely, to benefit a select group.

Remember, and never ever fing forget, acpa never had a majority vote in favor of maintaining the age 60 rule. When the minority, runs the majority, the union is not a union, it is a dictatorship, and that is what acpa has grass rooted itself into. When 200 members, in good standing, paying maximum union dues, formally request that their beloved union, file a simple grievance on EACH of their behalf's, and they (acpa) refuse to do so, there is no legal justification for that type of discrimination. There in no BFOR defense. It is plain discrimination, based solely on age, and nothing else.

Now....(are we in the sandbox together?)

AC has been denied BFOR, every time up to bat before the courts, AC got acpa to sign on the dotted line, for 50% liability, (prior to any court action starting way back when) and acpa has been given yet, again, another opportunity, to squirm around in the courts, do you think that if.....acpa wins a BFOR, and AC has been denied a BFOR, and they are in the sandbox together for 50% liability, that the courts will allow the union to have a BFOR and yet the employer, can not, even though they are 50-50 on the liability?

As Morry Bund stated, The 150 pages of the Federal Court, (one judge) issued over 100 pages devoted to building a case for acpa, (yes building it, NOT defending its legal position) telling them how to file a BFOR case, and then breaking numerous laws, to get a faint hope shot, at a BFOR defense was just plain wrong.....and illegal.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by 777longhaul on Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#168 Post by Rockie » Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:38 am

Fanblade wrote: Surely there are at least a few math inclined individuals in this place.
I haven't seen any math from you. I've seen 2+2=4 which I agree with and have since grade 2. I've seen a graph from you that clearly and simply proves my argument...not yours. And I've seen a spreadsheet produced by you, based on incorrect assumptions that you repeatedly used actual words to express, manipulating irrelevant numbers using unknown formulas to derive other numbers unrelated to anything. It isn't math - it's a bunch of useless numbers in boxes passed off as math. You know...garbage in/garbage out. You should be asking why your spreadsheet didn't predict the train you got run over by in 2012.

The deductive reasoning used by me and many other people since 2006 however has been validated by the actual events. We all saw the train coming just by raising our head and looking down the track, and our warnings were dismissed and unheeded. Too busy playing with excel perhaps or just plain closing your eyes pretending the train didn't really exist. Whatever...I'll stick with deductive reasoning thanks...
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#169 Post by Fanblade » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:29 am

Thanks for the correction Morry.

However my comments were based more about the rules of introducing evidence.

Rockie,

Still working like the Tasmanian devil I see. How's the mob creation going? I only count yourself and MTK. I'd be surprised if you get many takers, but then again who knows.

I am absolutely amazed at how much your suspicions are ruling your rational. You really do believe I'm throwing some sort of conundrum at you that has a trick involved don't you. Some sort of slight of hand that you can't quite get your finger on. But your certain in must be there.

You see Rockie the concept is valid. More important than a delay in progression, is WHEN the that delay happens.

Heck you could grab a handful of pennies and teach yourself.

Lay out ten rows of pennies. Put one penny in row one. Two pennies in row two. Three pennies in row three and so on all the way to row 10.

Count the total pennies. 55

Now delay the progression at row 9 so that row ten has 9 as well.

Count the pennies on the table. 54. Count the pennies in your hand. 1. Notice no witchcraft is transpiring. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

Now delay the progression at row 5 so that row 6 has 5 pennies. Row seven has 6 pennies. Row 8 has 7 pennies and so on.

Count the pennies on the table. 50. Count the pennies in your hand. 5. Still no witchcraft going on. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

Now delay the progression at row 2 so that row 2 has 1 penny. Row 3 has 2 pennies. Row 4 has 3 pennies and so on.

Count the pennies on the table. 46. Count the pennies in your hand. 9. Still no witchcraft. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

In this simulation the single penny accounts for slightly less than 2%. The impact of "WHEN" that penny is removed, varies from 2% to just over 16%.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#170 Post by Dockjock » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:55 am

777longhaul wrote: Remember, and never ever fing forget, acpa never had a majority vote in favor of maintaining the age 60 rule. When the minority, runs the majority, the union is not a union, it is a dictatorship, and that is what acpa has grass rooted itself into.
I won't bother with the merits of the case, but to say that a majority vote was achieved. When a vote is held, only those who bother to vote get a say. The vote passed, by a majority. Just because the number of winning voters didn't exceed a majority of all eligible members doesn't mean it wasn't a majority. You have to vote to have a say, that's just how voting works.
Now back to the slagging match. Mandatory retirement was repealed (er...moved back 5 years), you won. You just didn't "get paid" which is exactly what you are accusing ACPA of doing, gerrymandering the dates. I hope you get nothing but if you do, you 200 fellas get your money or whatever it is you want, an apology, a pat on the back, a hug, and on January 21 blast off into the sun and never come back. That will be a good day.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Dockjock on Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#171 Post by Rockie » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:56 am

I see where you're confused now Fanblade, you're putting pennies in your hand when you need to leave them on the table and count them there. With five extra years service you have five extra rows of pennies unless you're also arguing that people don't get paid while waiting for those five years.

Add a row at row 1 and you have 1 extra penny. Add a row at row 10 and you have 10 extra pennies. In row 1 you still get 1 more penny for each extra row (year) you add and so on all the way to row 10. You aren't doing magic after all, just run of the mill sleight of hand to make something that's still there appear to disappear.

Of course your example perfectly illustrates what would happen if you decided to still retire at age 60 -no argument from me. But you aren't losing that money...you are voluntarily giving it up. Your choice. Nobody will listen to your complaints or buy your argument if it's your own decision to retire five years before you have to.

I like that analogy, once again like your graph it proves my argument...not yours.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#172 Post by Fanblade » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:33 am

Rockie wrote:I see where you're confused now Fanblade, you're putting pennies in your hand when you need to leave them on the table and count them there. With five extra years service you have five extra rows of pennies unless you're also arguing that people don't get paid while waiting for those five years.

Add a row at row 1 and you have 1 extra penny. Add a row at row 10 and you have 10 extra pennies. In row 1 you still get 1 more penny for each extra row (year) you add and so on all the way to row 10. You aren't doing magic after all, just run of the mill sleight of hand to make something that's still there appear to disappear.

I like that analogy, once again like your graph it proves my argument...not yours.
Happy to hear you finally get the concept Rockie.

I think?

To be clear. You now accept that ,compensation to age 60 varies depending on when the progression delay takes place?

To further clarify.

If the delay takes place later in ones career, the the compensation to age 60 is impacted less than if the delay happened earlier in the career. Conversely the compensation to age 60 of an individual delayed early in their career, is greater than an individual impacted later.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#173 Post by Rockie » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:43 am

Of course I get that since I've been saying it all along.

The flaw in your argument and hence your much self-promoted math, is that you have extended that principle beyond age 60 to 65 citing the losses in each year beyond 60 concluding that you still don't make it up completely even at 65. I can provide quotes if you like.

You took a finite amount of income that you would have gotten to age 60 and spread it out another 5 years further reduced in each year due to a delay in getting your next seat. In doing so you completely left out the additional 5 years pay you get in your current seat waiting for the hiatus to end.

Your calculation only works to age 60 - after that it's a totally different paradigm and your calculation is utterly invalid. Each additional year worked is an additional year's income in your current seat over and above what you would have gotten before provided you go to 65...period. There is a break even point somewhere between 60-65, but calculating that would be extraordinarily complex given the permutations for each individual pilot and countless uncontrollable influences, but again leaving before 65 is your choice and you would be voluntarily eating whatever loss you incurred so don't complain if you don't like the taste of it. And we haven't even considered the increased pension thanks to more pensionable time yet. It's ridiculously simple Fanblade.

Is your error starting to sink in yet?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#174 Post by Fanblade » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:31 am

Rockie wrote:Of course I get that since I've been saying it all along.
Good. No backtracking now. You have just acknowledged that compensation to age 60 is inversely proportional to seniority. The more senior will arrive at age 60 with more compensation than the more junior as a result of the progression delay.

Excellent. I think we are almost done.

All we need to do now is is determine if in all cases, senior/ Junior, the lost compensation to age 60 is recoverable by working to age 65. To do that however we need an actuary to quantify the compensation loss to age 60 for each seniority range as a result the progression delay. Then compare that number to the compensation gain post age 60 by continuing to work.

About that compensation gain past age 60. I am using the word compensation versus salary for a reason. Past 60 you need to pick which compensation you want. Either your pension or continue to work and collect a salary.

I assume when you speak of recovering lost compensation by continuing to age 65, you are defining recoverable compensation as salary minus the pension you could have taken. For example a person who could collect a 20k/year pension, but chooses to continue working for 50K/year. Are you defining recoverable compensation as 50K/year or 30K?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

#175 Post by Rockie » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:07 pm

Fanblade wrote:Good. No backtracking now. You have just acknowledged that compensation to age 60 is inversely proportional to seniority. The more senior will arrive at age 60 with more compensation than the more junior as a result of the progression delay.
I've been acknowledging that for years including in this thread, nothing new here.
Fanblade wrote:All we need to do now is is determine if in all cases, senior/ Junior, the lost compensation to age 60 is recoverable by working to age 65. To do that however we need an actuary to quantify the compensation loss to age 60 for each seniority range as a result the progression delay. Then compare that number to the compensation gain post age 60.

No you do not need an actuary. I've shown you several times how after this hiatus everybody's career post 2017 will be identical to what their career would have been post 2012 under the old system provided they go to 65. You cannot prove otherwise and in fact haven't even tried. If their career is identical so will the pay once this hiatus is over. Because of the fixed seniority list and fixed retirement date once the wait is over every pilot will spend as much time in each seat, ending up with the same or better seniority as they would have before. Prove they won't.

Same career = same compensation. Then you add whatever you made during the hiatus. Prove otherwise. Show me on your graph how the careers differ once it picks up again after the hiatus. Pick any spot on the green line and track straight across to the red line. Same seniority - same length of time on in any particular seat - all the way from the top to the bottom. The space in the middle equals whatever you are making in your particular seat for the five years.

Retire earlier than 65 and it becomes more complicated but again, your choice.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”