FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Post Reply
Ah_yeah
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Ah_yeah » Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:57 am

Raymond Hall wrote: Not correct. You don't know who Rockie is, but I do. We met once, when I was still an active line pilot, and we have corresponded a few times since then. He is not a member of the Coalition, so he is not privy to the correspondence that goes out to our members, but he is who he says he, a fairly junior line pilot, with a mind of his own.

And for the record, nobody (in the Coalition) is trying to "screw you over." Those types of comments are unhelpful to the discussion thread, and reflect more about your own unwillingness or inability to comprehend the significance of the legal issues to be decided than they do about the points raised in discussion here.
Fair enough on para. 1 Raymond. After 800 odd posts i'm sure I wasn't the only reader suspicious.

Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:10 am

Understated wrote:
So what we have then is a five year delay in seniority and income progression, with five years added to the career at a fixed rate of income, plus the same income that would have previously been earned to age 60, that is now earned to age 65. The difference is simply five more years of salary at a flat rate.
You know what understated this statement is actually correct. I think I can work with it. I have changed the word salary to compensation. The word salary to me means leaving out other forms of compensation such as pension.

The difference is simply five more years of compensation at a flat rate

That difference applies to everyone to age 65. Even those who retired just prior to 2012. For them their fixed rate is a pension. So one would expect that any pilot who stagnated at a lower salary than a pension, would make less to age 65 than the litigants. Anyone who stagnated at a higher salary than a pension, would make more to age 65 than the litigants.

When viewed this way (total compensation to age 65 of the entire pilot group) the litigants fit in around the 50 percentile mark. They accomplished this while working 5 years less.

Help?

I'm not trying to predict an outcome of how the courts may or may not deduce financial harm. I am simply responding to statements that inaccurately claim everyone does financially better as a result of the change if they work to 65. This inaccurate view paints only the litigants with financial harm and MIGHT drive unrealistic expectations if not understood correctly.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DH772
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:05 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by DH772 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:55 am

So all the new hired pilots, employed after all this non sense should have saved ahead of time before accepting employment at AC?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
bluemic
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: A slightly large Pacific Island

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by bluemic » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:27 am

Ah_yeah wrote: So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?
I swore to myself: “Self,” I said, “Do NOT get involved in this argument. Let it reside where it belongs. With the courts. Everything here is just venting - sprinkled with maybe a dose of entertainment.”

Alas, ‘Self’ didn’t listen and since “Ah_yeah’s” post had struck a nerve, I reluctantly forced myself to delay the morning martini, hang up on the talk-radio host, don my tattered and worn dressing gown and shuffle on over to the keyboard.

FWIW, I’m one of the “200”. (Why do pilot disputes always have to involve numbers? I mean, like, first we had the AC 243s, then the CX 49ers, the FP60 - and now the “200”! Do pilots have a fixation with numbers AND big watches? Did we spend too much of our childhood shuffling through pennies in our piggy bank? Are we that anal? But I’m meandering here.....so I’d best get back to the topic.)

I was about to say that I’m one of the litigants and add that I’m not confident there will be any compensation. Just my non-legal opinion of course (and obviously I’d like to be proven wrong) but again, that’s up to the justice system to decide.

What tugged at me was Ah_yeah’s comment about having to take out a second mortgage to pay for any damages. Such a scenario would indeed be a bitter pill for anyone to swallow.

BUT...surely you know that YOUR union elected to sign on for 50% of any damages? That YOUR union could’ve filed the grievances that they were asked to and they’d have absolved themselves of any financial risk to you, the members? That, had they done so, none of us would be posting here and any financial damages would’ve fallen squarely on the company’s shoulders?

But that’s not what happened was it? The union in its wisdom (some have called it a greedy version of Musical Chairs) decided they didn’t want anyone staying past 60 - at least not just now thankewverymuch - so they picked up their pens. With that, they put all of you on the possible hook. Definitely a “screwing over” as you put it, although probably not in the direction you intended.

Believe me Ah_yeah, I empathize with your predicament.

But my question to you is, Where were you when the union agreed to do this? Did you lobby your exec and shout: Whoooaaa! I’m not signing on for THAT! Did you perhaps join after the fact and are now stuck holding the bag? Have you been active in this issue or did you blindly ignore where YOUR union was taking you...and simply hope it would just fade away?

Because if you chose the latter, my sympathy meter is firmly pegged on “empty”.

Now....where’d I put the blue nectar?

mic

edited: spelling
---------- ADS -----------
  

Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:17 pm

Ah_yeah wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?
Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Norwegianwood » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:07 pm

[/quote]Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.[/quote]


Yikes, that's six (6) figures 100,000 times 200(litigants) which my trusty Microsoft calculator came back with $20M divided by 2 (1/2 each AC/acpa) = $10M acpa dollars divided by 3000 active pilots = $3333.33333333 each!

Small price to pay for not filing a grievance from the offset! Just like all the other unions did, but no we knew better! Right!!!!!

NW
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:33 pm

Fanblade wrote:You know what understated this statement is actually correct.
Well hallelujah. To borrow a phrase Fanblade:
Fanblade wrote:Excellent. I think we are almost done.
Until now you rejected numerous times the statement you just agreed with, but now at least I think we can dismiss your spreadsheet and its much ballyhooed math as a work of fiction and continue....
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Rockie wrote:
Fanblade wrote:You know what understated this statement is actually correct.
Well hallelujah. To borrow a phrase Fanblade:
Fanblade wrote:Excellent. I think we are almost done.
Until now you rejected numerous times the statement you just agreed with, but now at least I think we can dismiss your spreadsheet and its much ballyhooed math as a work of fiction and continue....
Rockie,

You are just embarrassing yourself in front of anyone who does get this. I read your posts and can tell you are an intelligent guy. This isn't exactly rocket science and multiple different angles have now been presented to help you understand. The only excuse I can think of is your putting next to no effort into understanding it.

I said the statement was correct but showed why the outcome wouldn't be as he ( and you) was expecting. It was simply a different approach to the same concept. You should read it as well as it is centre to why you are having such an issue understanding. If you actually read it? Maybe a light will go on.

But I mean really. Your getting to be a bit much on this topic. At least at the top of one page you admitted math isn't your best suit.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:13 pm

Your error fanblade, is comparing each pilot's compensation with other pilots. There is an inequity there depending on which seat you sit in during the hiatus that is well known however the union refused to address it beforehand, so if you have an issue with it you should talk to them and ask why. Actually never mind since you didn't want them to anyway - I'm guessing you didn't ask them to address it before the rule changed or anytime since. Probably because you were happy to see your seniority rise as the union delayed the process for six years. Can you say "trade off"? After all logic told me that stalling the process in favour of seniority advancement would result in the inequities between seats for each year and I'm frankly shocked that math didn't tell you the same thing. Maybe it did and you just opted for the delay?

So do not compare your compensation increase with anybody above you, below you, retired pre-2012 or post 2012. It is irrelevant. The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases. If you don't believe that look at your last two total compensation statements from the company - they went up in all columns including pension. If you happen to be a pilot with 30 (actually 34) years potential service or less (there are many hundreds of them - maybe even you) your pension income on retirement will also rise.

Simple stuff Fanblade, and if you can think long and hard enough you will eventually realize it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:27 pm

Rockie wrote: The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.
False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, personal attacks, or simply wear out your adversary and drive them to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:46 pm

Fanblade wrote:False.
What? Do you have another spreadsheet?

Actually what this is about is dispelling irrelevant, inaccurate bu****it passed off as fact...or in your case, math. Somebody has to do it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Norwegianwood » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:24 pm

Fanblade wrote:
Rockie wrote: The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.
False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, or drive the individual to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.

:weedman: :rolleyes: :finga:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Rockie wrote:
Fanblade wrote:False.
What? Do you have another spreadsheet?

Actually what this is about is dispelling irrelevant, inaccurate bu****it passed off as fact...or in your case, math. Somebody has to do it.
Wow,

I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.


Check this article out. Better yet read some of the comments below it. I'm thinking there are lots of clues in here to help you operate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... et-trolls/
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:50 pm

What do these mean?

NAR

BFOR

MOT
===================================================================================================================
NAR Normal age of retirement, is not 60 in Canada, and many other countries around the world. Courts have struck that down, for AC and acpa. New ICAO rule, (NOV 2014) it is age 65.

BFOR Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, struct down by the courts for AC, and acpa, has a chance in FCA, only due to FC (Federal court) giving them a faint hope shot. FCA will decide.

MOT NO age restriction on Licence and Medical. They are the top authority on your licence and medical.

IF.....acpa gets a BFOR ruling from the FCA, and it is used to continue the enforcement of the illegal age discrimination termination, (remember, AC was refused the BFOR rule, numerous times in court) THEN by the very definition of BFOR, ALL pilots at AC will have to be terminated from their employment, upon reaching age 60!

BFOR applied at age 60 is BFOR at age 60, doesnt matter what the ICAO rule is. IF .....acpa wants the BFOR, and they get it from the FCA, then all pilots who are 60, and over, are flying illegally at AC, because, there is, (according to acpa) a BFOR that was applied to the FP60 Coalition, and therefore, there has to be a BFOR to any and all pilots at 60. BFOR has a very strict definition, and if it is applied to age 60, (FP60 Coalition), by the laws of Canada, it must always be applied at age 60. What a beauty!!

This little following read, is from the official CHRC. (copied from their website)
==========================================

Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFORs)
Is there ever a time when a discriminatory employment rule is valid?

Actually, there is: when the rule is a BFOR - a bona fide occupational requirement. This means that the rule establishes a requirement that is necessary for proper or efficient performance of a job. The BFOR exception is included in virtually all human rights codes in Canada.

Let's look at BFORs in the context of adverse effect discrimination.

For example, a rule establishing that a stock clerk must be at least 6 feet in height and able to lift 100 pound boxes over the head indirectly discriminates against women because very few women would meet those qualifications.

However, if a rule is a legitimate qualification for doing a job - a BFOR - then it will be upheld. For a rule to qualify as a BFOR, it must be:

made honestly, in good faith, and in the sincere belief that it is made in the interests of effectiveness, safety, and productivity
objectively reasonable. In other words, it must have a sensible connection to the ability of an employee to do the job.
Any rule that is made with the intention of excluding an individual or group will fail, no matter how reasonable it may be.

In our stock clerk example, the rule would be a BFOR if all the shelves were high up, there was no room for a ladder and all the products to be stocked were at least 100 pounds. However, the rule wouldn't be considered to have a sensible connection to the job if the clerks never had to lift anything or reach up over their heads.

Déja vu
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:47 pm

Fanblade wrote:Wow,I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.
I'm not feeling very called out. You have been proven wrong, and even when you go a small distance toward recognizing it you sidetrack yourself into an irrelevant area in an attempt to cloud what is very clear logic. Logic that you still haven't answered my questions on by the way which I find telling. I don't know...maybe it's just me that drives you to irrationality since Understated said exactly the same thing I did and you seemed to accept it.

Whatever...

Anyway, you can count on me to continue to counter BS on this issue whether it comes from you or anybody else. I've spent years trying to get some of the more dogmatic people to see reason and I must admit, it's nigh impossible for some. Even when presented with incontrovertible evidence in the form of actual events the denial continues. Very disturbing behavior from allegedly intelligent professionals who aren't supposed to deny incontrovertible evidence.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ah_yeah
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Ah_yeah » Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:56 pm

Fanblade wrote:
Rockie wrote: The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.
False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, or drive the individual to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.
There is method to that madness.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appe

Post by Fanblade » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:07 pm

Rockie wrote:
Fanblade wrote:Wow,I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.
1) You have been proven wrong,
2) and even when you go a small distance toward recognizing it you sidetrack yourself into an irrelevant area
3) in an attempt to cloud what is very clear logic.
4) Logic that you still haven't answered my questions on
5) by the way which I find telling.
6) I don't know...maybe it's just me that drives you to irrationality since Understated said exactly the same thing I did and you seemed to accept it.

Whatever...

Anyway,
7)you can count on me to continue to counter BS on this issue whether it comes from you or anybody else.
8) I've spent years trying to get some of the more dogmatic people to see reason
9) and I must admit, it's nigh impossible for some.
10) Even when presented with incontrovertible evidence in the form of actual events the denial continues.
11) Very disturbing behavior from
12) allegedly intelligent professionals who aren't supposed to deny incontrovertible evidence.
:lol:

Very very few words in that post that are not for the explicit purpose of discrediting.

And why? I have dared to question the "this is good for everyone dogma"

You can't help yourself can you. Your like a rabid dog when you want someone and or their comments discredited.

Keep digging.

A troll once realizing there is no logic to make the unwanted pest to go away will:


Go after ones reputation, bring into disrepute, disgrace, dishonor, damage the reputation of, blacken the name of, put/show in a bad light, reflect badly on, compromise, stigmatize, smear, tarnish, taint, slur, cause to seem false or unreliable! dishonor, disgrace, shame, humiliate, blame
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:49 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Ah_yeah
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Ah_yeah » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:22 pm

Raymond Hall wrote:
Ah_yeah wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?
Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.
Yes it is understandable the you recuse yourself.
I will add one last note about damages. I would hope that if it gets to hearing damage claims, the judge(s) factor in the career gains the litigants enjoyed prior to the age 60 by the very rule they got quashed. Looking only at the losses after age 60 is hypocritical. I'm curious, were there any litigants under the age of sixty spearheading the mandatory retirement rule change? I know some jumped aboard prior to retirement once the wheels were in motion.
Gawd, the more one ponders this, the more strange the outcomes could look. Ie, who specifically gets the bill. Does the new hire get the bill as well ? After all they could be lobbying ACPA to settle up now or does their silence damn them. If not the new hire, how about those happily retired that aren't litigating ? How about the estates of the deceased ? How about the 60 plusers on the payroll now who are in the ultimate financial sweetspot from the timely abolition ? How about the 200 or so that are litigants...does that insulate from liability ? What if you are Rockie, the alleged lone voice of reason on the list. Should he have to pay given he has tried to move heaven and earth to make the drooling masses see the light before the shovel contacts our heads ?
I'm just saying it's not easy to assess blame. Perhaps if the litigants had started this process 10 years sooner it would be solved by now...wait, see what I just did there ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
bluemic
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: A slightly large Pacific Island

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by bluemic » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:22 pm

Perhaps if the litigants had started this process 10 years sooner it would be solved by now...
Geez....6 pm out here on my island and once again I have to put aside the juniper juice, lift my bulk off the sofa and shuffle over to the keyboard. Might as well become a "friend of Bill"!

Ten years is a bit of a stretch. But if memory serves, the "litigants" did start the process some 8 years ago.

I'm sure you remember this Ah_yeah, but the ICAO rules concerning "over 60 commanders" changed in (IIRC) 2006. Prior to that date it would have made little sense to "start the process" you mentioned. If you did start it, where would it go? Before the change in 2006, ICAO had said 'no' to international flying (for PICs) after reaching 60. The US observed that guideline. So how then could one keep flying as captain if one couldn't: a) fly overseas and b) fly over US airspace? Unless of course, one really liked pemmican and wanted to have a roster of trips from YEG to YEV.

But after 2006 the world changed. The litigants started the process. ACPA, for whatever reasons, declined to raise its head out of the sand.

And you - the collective 'you' - don't seem to have done much to urge them to do so.

[scratches beard, shuffles back to sofa]

mic
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:32 pm

ICAO will likely raise the age above 65 somewhere around the time Fanblade and Ah-Yeah are reaching that golden age. Depending on their circumstance they may actually want to keep going themselves. Wouldn't that be funny?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:43 pm

Fanblade wrote:Very very few words in that post that are not for the explicit purpose of discrediting.
That's rich coming from the guy who wrote this:
Fanblade wrote:Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, personal attacks, or simply wear out your adversary and drive them to give up. Which ever comes first. It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.Actually, its just about controlling the message.I get it.
You really don't like being disagreed with do you?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mechanic787
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Mechanic787 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:43 pm

Ah_yeah wrote:Gawd, the more one ponders this, the more strange the outcomes could look.
I have been following this issue with keen interest, primarily for its impact on other unions and employers in the federal jurisdiction. Here’s how I see this unfolding, assuming that the court of appeal decision goes in favour of the coalition (an assumption that is anything but certain).

Given the potential liability to both ACPA and Air Canada, I expect both to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. They will be unsuccessful, I predict, as one or two things will determine the outcome of the application. First, the Federal Court of Appeal will make its decision bullet-proof. Second, the SCC will decline to hear the case on the basis that there is nothing of significant national importance to justify it hearing the appeal.

Regardless, if the FCA decides in favour of the litigants the case will be referred back to the Tribunal for a final decision on liability in accordance with the wording of the FCA decision. Only the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the complaints, not the FCA, so it will be up to the Tribunal to issue the final decision on the complaints, upheld or not upheld.

There are two consequences of the coalition pilots winning at the FCA and the Tribunal. First, the 70 pilots in this proceeding will be entitled to a Tribunal hearing on remedy. It will likely not be scheduled for months after the Tribunal decision is out, given the glacial pace at which the Tribunal has heard and decided the cases in the past as well as the difficulty of finding dates when all counsel are available for one or more very lengthy hearings.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the FCA decision, including the financial significance of the downside, will eventually filter down to the average line pilot and there will undoubtedly be a very emotional reaction as a result. I expect ACPA to experience considerable turmoil dealing with all aspects of this, including how to eventually satisfy all of the judgments. The questions posed above will need to be answered, especially, who pays and how much. It should be remembered, however, that this is not a class action suit. There will not be one single award of $x. There will be individual awards to each complainant pilot, and each award will come at different times in varying degrees of sequence as the remedy hearings are heard and the awards are decided by the Tribunal. Also, each award will vary according to evidence specific to that pilot's circumstances. Death by 200 cuts.

Second, the present FCA case involves only 70 complainants. As I understand it, there are about 130 other pilot complainants whose complaints have been held in abeyance awaiting the outcome of these court proceedings. The Tribunal will schedule those complaints for hearings and the hearings should likely be expedited, at least as far as the liability issue is concerned, given that almost all of the liability issues will have already been decided by the courts.

In any dispute there is always the possibility of a settlement, but in my view, given the size of the potential liability as well as a recent change in law regarding wrongful dismissal damages (pension payments are not necessarily deducted from damage awards, based on a SCC decision of last year, adding a sizeable potential sum to each damage award in the case of pilots earning a six figure pension), the chances of settlement are slim—both Air Canada and ACPA will undoubtedly vigorously oppose any sizeable payment to any pilot.

As suggested in a previous post, the potential total liability is huge. But it is not unprecedented. In 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Tribunal decision from the same Tribunal member who decided this case, awarding over $150 million in damages to employees and former employees of Canada Post in the pay equity Tribunal decision.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/17 ... 0-million/

Again, all of the above is speculation based on the tenuous assumption that the coalition pilots win on all three of the appeals at the FCA. If they lose on any of them, none of the above scenarios is likely to come to pass.
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:08 pm

For:

Ah-yeah
FanBlade
many others, lurkers included.

Need some insight on "when this should have started" please go to my post today, (Dec 11 2014) on this site, titled Age 60.

There are to areas of interest, Canada, and the USA.

This issue started back in the 1950's.

I would assume.....that time line, is soon enough for you?

As Bluemic has very clearly stated, (on his way, to and from the sofa) acpa, has dragged you all into this for one very, very specific reason, they (select group in the various MEC's) wanted to get rid of the senior pilots as quickly as possible while benefiting their move up the list.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Doug Moore » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:00 pm

I’m not now and never have been one of the FP60 litigants – I keep repeating this in the hopes that my views will be accepted as an observer and not a participant with an interest in the legal outcome of the January 2015 court hearing.

It would appear that only the intervention of a certified Actuary is going to settle this income loss/gain debate between Fanblade and Rockie, and given that actuarial services are very expensive I suspect such an intervention will never happen here to settle things to the agreement of all.

My personal point of view is that an Actuary would conclude very quickly that there are simply too many dynamic variables at play throughout a pilot’s career that would prevent any reasonable set of assumptions being developed and applied to an income projection model. Actuaries rely on statistical data to develop assumptions such as life expectancy or interest rates. There is no data to reliably predict a company’s health 20 -30 years out (expansion or retraction) and there certainly is no data to reliably predict individual pilot bidding patterns.

As I have stated before, I’m with Rockie vis-à-vis the consequence of the removal of mandatory retirement at age 60 and its effect on seniority progression/income loss/gain. Fanblade, on the other side of the debate, is very passionate and certain of the opposite effect on the pilot’s career.

I believe all can agree that there has been a definite slowdown in seniority progression due to a slowdown in retirements, and agree also that this is a short-term effect, in as much as by 2017 retirements will resume at pre-2012 rates.

The effect of this 5-year hiatus on income is a much more contentious issue. Fanblade has developed a chart based on what I presume are some form of (actuarial-like) assumptions that leads to a projected career income loss, the effect of which is greater on the more junior pilots. I believe that I understand Fanblade’s logic and as I explained in a previous post, I believe that his logic is flawed in as much as it is impossible to develop actuarial assumptions that could be applied to a projection of a pilot’s future income.

I was content (sort of) to leave it at that (agree to disagree) but the thought kept gnawing away that surely there must be a way using Fanblade’s preferred method (math) to demonstrate what I believe to be true: that at the end of a career, a pilot’s total income will not be in the loss column, but rather a gain at best, or break-even at worst.

I came up with a chart (see attachment below) showing years of service from 1 to 40. With each of these years is assigned a symbolic wage amount. To keep the math simple, Year 1 was assigned a wage of $1000 with each subsequent year increasing by $1000 thereby representing an expected wage uplift (be it an increase due to equipment change, right seat to left seat, or just an annual across-the-board raise). So, in column 1 are years of service and column 2 are annual pay rates where Year 1 = $1000, Year 2 = $2000, Year 5 = $5000, Year 20 = $20,000 and so on until finally Year 40 = $40,000.

I then created a column 3 that showed cumulative earnings throughout one’s career. Obviously at the end of Year 1, the cumulative earnings would be $1000. For each year thereafter would be added the previous year’s earnings. So at the end of Year 2, the cumulative earnings would be $3000, at the end of year 10 the cumulative earnings would be $55,000 and so on up to year 40 where the cumulative total is $820,000. I should state at this point that my “math” was done manually so any error is mine and unintentional.

A pilot retiring under the old system with 35 years service would have cumulative earnings of $630,000. What effect does the new regime have on a pilot who, for example, was age 40 when the rules changed? He was expecting to retire at age 60 with 35 years service and $630,000 cumulative earnings based on him “moving up” every year with an increase in pay. But at age 40 the rules changed and, to create a worst-case example, has been penalized with zero (no) advancement in pay or seniority progression for 5 years due to every pilot senior to him staying on the seniority list.

What happens now? The method I used was to go back 20 years on the chart from year 35 (60-40=20 years to retirement) and look at his salary per year (that which he would be earning at the time of the retirement rule change) and then freeze that salary for 5 years (see column 4). In this example, he would be in Year 16 of the pay scale making $16000/year and would be frozen at that rate for 5 years. At the end of the 5th year of the freeze he would start advancing again, making $17,000 in the 6th year, $18,000 in the 7th and so on up the scale with the difference being the 5 additional years between ages 60-65 now becoming income producing years at rates of 32, 33, 34, 35 and $36,000/year. Working to age 65 now increased cumulative earnings from the previously noted $630,000 to $730,000. No income loss here.

Using the same method for a pilot aged 55 (see column 5) at the time of the rule change results of a cumulative earnings increase from $630,000 to $785,000. Again, no income loss. What is the impact on the most junior pilot, for example, bottom of the list, hired on 01 Jan 2013?

For this example I created a 6th and 7th column, with the first 5 years frozen at $1000/year and after that, Year 6 at $2000, Year 7 at $3000 and all the way up to Year 40, which is now set at $36,000. Taking numbers from column 3, looking at a 35-year career with no interruptions and retirement at age 60 under the old mandatory retirement rule, we have seen cumulative earnings of $630,000. From the 6th and 7th columns, this new, bottom-of-the-list junior pilot, frozen in advancement for the first 5 years but now able to work for 40 years instead of the original 35 will see cumulative career earnings of $670,000. Admittedly, only a slight increase, but an increase nonetheless. A pilot hired in 2017 will suffer none of the freezes, and over a 40-year career will see a significant cumulative earnings increase from $630,000 to $820,000 as shown in column 3.

It bears repeating (as a reminder) that my numbers do not in any way represent actual wages. They are simple numbers used to represent, calculate and compare whether wage loss or wage gain has been caused by the change in retirement age. My logic assumes a wage increase for everyone, for each and every year, a 5-year freeze in advancement and a 5-year addition to the number of years able to be worked. I don’t claim that my chart is accurate (although I believe it to be reasonable) and I will be happy to receive any comments that might improve or reveal holes in my thinking. I am simply trying to demonstrate that over one’s career, the potential is there to earn more income and not suffer, as Fanblade postulates, an income loss.

I am sure Fanblade, that you will be first to pounce on my “math” and quick to point out that the most junior pilots, even using my model, receive the least gain – at least that’s what my chart appears to reveal. But … even the most junior seniority number doesn’t lose wages. Had ACPA taken a different approach to FP60 this inequity might have been identified and mitigated but of course history cannot be undone.

Not a factor in my chart, but a huge and significant issue nonetheless, is the ability to contribute for 5 additional years to your pension plan – particularly for those pilots who started later in life and not close to being able to achieve 35 years pensionable service. Other items that might have been negotiated had ACPA not been so recalcitrant with FP60 are the 35-year cap, early retirement penalties, indexation, survivor benefits, etc. It was disheartening to watch how quickly the pension plan went from billions in deficit to a surplus around the same time that the retirement rules changed. True, it was not all due to the change in retirement age, but the change had significant impact on the plan’s funding and the pilots didn’t see a dime of the benefit that went to (or didn’t have to be taken out of) the company’s coffers.

But, I’m off-topic, so … contemplate the above and fire away! Plug in your own circumstances and let us know how you have been impacted.

To save those posters who are going to say that they now have to work beyond age 60 against their wishes, yes, I realize that you most likely will take an early retirement benefit penalty if you choose retirement before 65. The outcome for ACPA pilots fighting FP60 has been far from optimal, but ACPA has no one but itself to blame for ignoring the opportunity to make the change in retirement age work for everyone, particularly as regards pension matters.

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
Earnings Chart.docx
(142.01 KiB) Downloaded 48 times

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:29 pm

Your chart is correct Doug and it's a variation on the "pennies in rows on the table" example Fanblade gave. Like me you know that more years of service equals more rows of pennies which equals more money. Fanblade I think views the different levels of increase for junior guys as a loss compared to senior guys, and to illustrate it withheld pennies in his hand resulting in fewer on the table. Which of course is wrong.

Guys making more money for those years is a completely predictable inequity that the union should have addressed, but we know they chose different and convinced the pilots to sign off on what they did do instead.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”