2nd Job

[mbav8r]

With all you outlined that you achieved during your career at AC, I would question whether or not you always showed up for work meeting the required definition of rested.

I am not suggesting that you should not have access to and post on this Forum. All I am saying is that with the dozens (hundreds?) of posts that you have made on this Air Canada Forum, especially about all of the issues of mandatory retirement and seniority in respect of the Air Canada collective agreement and in the posts that you have been openly critical of my viewpoints and actions in regard to same, you now disclose that you are not even an Air Canada pilot. A total absence of transparency, to this point.

With respect to your speculation that I may have at one time or another breached my obligations to meet my own employment obligations re fatigue, given my external involvements, why don’t you throw some more spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

My record in meeting and exceeding the employment requirements speaks for itself, including the total absence of any disciplinary or other incidents whatsoever. So, try some other form of defamation, if you must. Don’t you think that, given my public condemnation of the senior Air Canada management’s actions when I was MEC Chair, the management would have loved to find some peccadillos in my operational performance? It didn’t happen, for good reason. I did my job to the required specifications and greater.

One thing that differentiates me from almost every other single contributor to this Forum is that I post in my own name and stand by my record, which is obvious for everyone to see and criticize. You are clearly not willing to do the same.

Raymond,
I think you may have mixed me up with another poster, I went back and here is a post of mine regarding fly past sixty directed to you,

“Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Edit Report Quote
Post by mbav8r » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:23 pm

Raymond, I am not involved in this but have been following it for a long time, maybe even right from the outset. Some questions if you don't mind.
When you originally started the fight, for lack of a better term, was it illegal or in your opinion, illegal?
You mentioned that it had to be the normal age of retirement and at the time federally it was age 60, I believe. The reason I mention this is because it had been considered normal to retire at 60, therefore it was likely a matter of opinion that what was going on, at least at the time, was completely legal.
So, I get what Fanblade is saying, if at the outset it was recognized the change was going to negatively affect a group that had expectations and instead of forcing change, approaching with a little give and take might have changed the response.
Do you honestly believe that if the fp60 group had approached with some type of compromise or acknowledged a compromise would be needed, instead of forcing the issue on them, that wouldn't have changed the response?
An honest question, not trying to antagonize”

Here is another,

“Thanks Raymond, didn't realize how far back that went, also quite interesting how the demographic shift caused the ratio difference to effectively challenge it.
Do you know when it was Jazz changed retirement to 65, is that when the ratio shifted?”

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond,
I think you may have mixed me up with another poster, I went back and here is a post of mine regarding fly past sixty directed to you,

“Thanks Raymond, didn't realize how far back that went, also quite interesting how the demographic shift caused the ratio difference to effectively challenge it. Do you know when it was Jazz changed retirement to 65, is that when the ratio shifted?”

[/quote]

You might be correct. I could have mistaken you for another. Let's face it. There have been literally hundreds of post from those who have disagreed with my position regarding the issues. No offence intended.

Regarding retirement at Jazz, I recall that the original trigger for George Vilven's complaint in 2003 was that he was seated next to a Jazz pilot commuting from work, who was over age 60 and who expressed surprise at Air Canada's forced retirement at age 60. I am not aware if Jazz ever had a mandatory retirement age of 60, but if it did it was well before 2003.

[Raymond Hall]

Now, Hall is being characterized as a quirky, unpredictable guy who would not get with the program. And by program, we mean the much-vaunted Conservative "play book" that the central party's war room drafts for ridings they want to steal from other parties.

fur1ough: I note that your post shows that you initiated your present UserName only one week ago. What is your alternate identity on this Forum?

Not sure where you sourced that quote. But it comes from something published around 2011. Trevor Kennard was the candidate in the prior election (2006) to my nomination in 2009. I can candidly state that whoever published it did not have knowledge of the facts, including my reasons for vacating the nomination, which I disclosed to no-one, including anyone in the media. I stated only that I left for "personal reasons," which is still correct.

In any event, this thread is not about me. It is about one's professional obligations and limitations with respect to one's employment, of which I have substantial knowledge and experience that could be of benefit to others.

Can we get back on track?

[fur1ough]

In any event, this thread is not about me. It is about one's professional obligations and limitations with respect to one's employment, of which I have substantial knowledge and experience that could be of benefit to others.

Oh please grace us with your knowledge oh wise one.

[fur1ough]

Now, Hall is being characterized as a quirky, unpredictable guy who would not get with the program. And by program, we mean the much-vaunted Conservative "play book" that the central party's war room drafts for ridings they want to steal from other parties.

fur1ough: I note that your post shows that you initiated your present UserName only one week ago. What is your alternate identity on this Forum?

I haven't been on this forum other than a public lurker in nearly 8 years. Given the shit storm were all in now, and the fact I'm sitting at home laid off with my finger up my ass, I figured to join in the fun. I remember you well though. As for who I am, all you need to know is I'm an AC pilot who has distain for you and all the people in your lawsuit as much as I do for the group of 27. Two groups of pilots who did nothing but look out for themselves and ended up fucking over the progression in this industry and causing financial harm to hundreds of pilots in their 50s who came after you.

So yeah, maybe just go back to your law office you've been retired a decade no one cares what you think anymore.

[ayseven]

A view from the outside:

Since you started that one, fitness can decide. The law to retire is discriminatory in any field. All businesses like cheaper, younger help, and love it even more when the pilots self destruct. How about the employers encourage the oldies to retire, by giving incentives? These are still people, you know, not faceless numbers.

One more thing: you want a lawyer to fight tooth and nail for you. You are not going to be best friends with them; in fact it is best not. Conversations with them are usually very expensive. If somebody qualified comes on here and gives free advice, it is probably in your best interests to at least listen to what he has to say.

[rudder]

A view from the outside:

Since you started that one, fitness can decide. The law to retire is discriminatory in any field. All businesses like cheaper, younger help, and love it even more when the pilots self destruct. How about the employers encourage the oldies to retire, by giving incentives? These are still people, you know, not faceless numbers.

One more thing: you want a lawyer to fight tooth and nail for you. You are not going to be best friends with them; in fact it is best not. Conversations with them are usually very expensive. If somebody qualified comes on here and gives free advice, it is probably in your best interests to at least listen to what he has to say.

This is settled law. BFOR/Duty to accommodate. Application is, however, local in nature.

The AC pilots are lucky that the age 65 provision has been upheld locally. There are lots of other pilots in Canada flying large jets (domestically) over age 65.

[accountant]

So Ray,

Did you work this case on a contingency deal? Must have been a nice payout in the end. AC pays more to the pilots, driving their costs up, they give their gains to you, in your pocket --- like most lawyers, and then you find another ambulance to chase.

[Rockie]

Given the shit storm were all in now, and the fact I'm sitting at home laid off with my finger up my ass,

I'm puzzled by the degree of animosity you feel toward this issue. Changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act barring mandatory retirement in federal regulated jurisdictions occurred on December 15th, 2012. If you are currently laid off from Air Canada this change happened years before you were even on the property. Plus as the change came about by federal law blaming anybody else for it seems misdirected, wouldn't it make more sense to direct your anger toward the political party that formed the government in 2012 since they are the ones who changed the law?

[pelmet]

Maybe all parties supported and voted for the change in the law.

[Rockie]

Maybe all parties supported and voted for the change in the law.

I think you might be right Pelmet, afterall this is a discrimination issue and who can't get onboard with that? However the end of mandatory retirement in federally regulated industry was buried in a budget bill tabled by the majority government of the day. Guess who that was?

[pelmet]

Maybe all parties supported and voted for the change in the law.

I think you might be right Pelmet, afterall this is a discrimination issue and who can't get onboard with that? However the end of mandatory retirement in federally regulated industry was buried in a budget bill tabled by the majority government of the day. Guess who that was?

Probably the Conservatives ending discrimination. Good on them.

[Rockie]

Maybe all parties supported and voted for the change in the law.

I think you might be right Pelmet, afterall this is a discrimination issue and who can't get onboard with that? However the end of mandatory retirement in federally regulated industry was buried in a budget bill tabled by the majority government of the day. Guess who that was?

Probably the Conservatives ending discrimination. Good on them.

For once we totally agree.

[pelmet]

I think you might be right Pelmet, afterall this is a discrimination issue and who can't get onboard with that? However the end of mandatory retirement in federally regulated industry was buried in a budget bill tabled by the majority government of the day. Guess who that was?

Probably the Conservatives ending discrimination. Good on them.

For once we totally agree.

A very moving moment Rockie, showing how we can overcome our differences to come together.

[accountant]

Of course Ray still hasn't indicated whether he took this case on a contingency deal or not.

Like most ambulance chasing lawyers they just chase the money....

[photofly]

Whereas pilots are famous for their largesse and their unconcern about their paycheques.

When you find a wide body captain who flies for free, then you can complain about lawyers’ fees.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Of course Ray still hasn't indicated whether he took this case on a contingency deal or not.

Just spitballing here, but perhaps he thinks it's none of your business? I mean, if you were one of his clients, you'd already know the answer and you wouldn't be on here beaking off with a bunch of innuendo and some snotty remarks about his profession. And since we can safely assume therefore that you're not his client, perhaps he doesn't feel you're owed an explanation regarding the remuneration arrangements he's negotiated with his clients? It's really not all that complicated.

[Raymond Hall]

Of course Ray still hasn't indicated whether he took this case on a contingency deal or not.
Like most ambulance chasing lawyers they just chase the money....

Well, what do you know? Surprise, surprise. Another cheap shot! From behind the cloak of anonymity, again. Thanks much. Please, tell us about some of the skeletons in your closet, Mr. Accountant. What are you hiding? Four posts since you joined this Forum two years ago, and you undoubtedly never met me personally, but feel free to go at my integrity. Slander me and my profession with your juvenile cliché. Perhaps you were born after I retired in 2009?

Solicitor fees are confidential. Nobody's business, except for the business of the clients, once they are issued.

Having said that, let me say that the members of the Fly Past 60 Coalition have made financial contributions to the costs of our legal proceedings on a voluntary basis, not on a legal fee basis. We asked for help, and the members responded, enabling us to acquire the best legal help in the country.

100% of those contributions went to payment of fees charged by outside legal counsel and to the legal costs associated with the hearings, including court costs. None of the contributions went to me personally. Our outside counsel was one of the top lawyers, if not the top, human rights lawyer in the country, who participated in these proceeding for over ten years, under my personal retainer (in other words, I was personally exposed to his bills). We chose to engage him because he won several major cases at the Supreme Court of Canada. I have neither charged nor received any fees whatsoever for my over 16 years of work on these proceedings. Not that you need to know that, as it is truly none of your business.

Now, let me just say that I really am not affected by your slander. I have become quite accustomed to it here. Especially cheap shots by people who don't identify themselves, who have nothing to lose and who are too lazy to seriously delve into the substance of the issues in dispute.

Ambulance chaser? No. Constitutional law lawyer. At the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, and not just on these legal issues. I appeared at both of those courts with other clients on non-aviation human rights issues, dealing with major disputes of constitutional and statutory law. How would you fare arguing complex legal issues at that level of the courts, on your days off as a pilot? It is so easy for you to sit back in your leisure and cast aspersions on those who actually try to change the world, not for their own benefit, but on principle and for the benefit of others.

I contributed to this thread to offer suggestions about the issue raised, namely, working in a second job. That is something that I obviously know more than a little about, both from personal experience and from my professional qualifications. But as so often happens with my posts, they quickly are responded to with an attack on my integrity, derailing the subject of the thread.

One day, you might wake up to the fact that there are principles on which some people choose to abide, including principles against discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of age, which is guaranteed both under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Constitution. I live by those principles and I have donated the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of legal services to the Fly Past 60 clients regarding the mandatory retirement issue in the pursuit of those principles, without charging any fees whatsoever.

In the alternative, I could easily have become quite well remunerated by any major law firm in this country that might have profited from my over 30 years, now, of legal experience. So be it. You make your decisions, I make mine.

And for your information, the fight is not yet over. I am currently representing over 30 pilots at the Tribunal and and the Federal Court in the last of our sets of complaints. As Yogi Berra so famously said, "It ain't over 'till its over."

[fur1ough]

One day, you might wake up to the fact that there are principles on which some people choose to abide, including principles against discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of age, which is guaranteed both under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Constitution. I live by those principles and I have donated the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of legal services to the Fly Past 60 clients regarding the mandatory retirement issue in the pursuit of those principles, without charging any fees whatsoever.

Hey Raymond what do you think about age discrimination in real estate sales? Specifically apartment buildings where you must be 55+ to purchase/live and they are not retirement homes. This is a problem in Canada and no one has been willing to fight for those effected!! For reasons I can probably guess.

Surely a man of your character and ethics would fight this for all the 25 year olds trying to buy their first place, but can't due to age discrimination!

Pls email me at furloughed@brokeaircanadaflatpaypilot.com if you are willing to take my case pro bono.

[ayseven]

C'mon man, cut it out. Your example is a bad one, because I don't know about you, but when I was in my 20's, the last place I would want to live, was one surrounded by oldies like I am now.

[accountant]

Thanks for the long reply Ray.

Yes that info is confidential, but sadly most lawyers who work on a contingency are just in it for the money.

Was it hard for you to share that info? Because honestly you sharing that has me look at you in a different light now. Sometimes when people are just honest up front it avoids all of the snarkiness and inuendo.

4 posts in 2 years doesn't really matter. I lurk and read all here, and have family who have worked at AC and been part of the messes since the 70's.

Too many strikes to count!

[ayseven]

I don't think anybody needs to apologise for making money. As long as everything is up front, it should never be an issue.

[Raymond Hall]

...sadly most lawyers who work on a contingency are just in it for the money.

Contingency fee agreements are no picnic for lawyers. The Law Societies limit the percent of compensation, the agreement must be in writing, in advance of the retainer, and many, but not all, agreements require the lawyer to be out of pocket for all of the running costs of the litigation until a successful judgment is rendered.

But the biggest problem is the time that it takes to get through the litigation, which means a deferral of getting paid until after the court renders a decision, which can be years. Not many lawyers can afford to put much of their practice into this category, as a result, because the cost of running an office with staff and paralegals doesn't wait for the judgment and collection.

Two other factors...first, if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the lawyer gets zero. Which accounts for the rarity of the agreements. Second, even if you win, you may not get paid, as your client still has to collect on the judgment and may not have the resources to pay the percent of the contingency until after collection, if the collection is successful. Which they often are not.

So, most lawyers avoid those agreements, unless the defendant is an insurance company or other solid corporate entity.

[Sharklasers]

This thread is a trainwreck.


If you have questions about whether a second job is acceptable ask your MLO. If you don’t like their answer contact furlough@acpa.ca and they will put you in touch with ACPA legal for their interpretation.

Fur1oughed- you haven’t been around long enough to reasonably bitch about fly past 60. That was done long before you got on property. If you hate it so much why join AC? It’s never going to change back so focus on things you can influence. Further I implore you to do your own research on FOS and the ‘group of 27’. NC2 did a bang up job of that trainwreck themselves by completely ignoring the reality of the situation. It’s been said that if you gave instructions to write a proposal that you could guarantee no arbitrator of sound mind could possible accept you would end up somewhere close to the basket of dogshit NC2 cobbled together. They didn’t need any help from G27 to orchestrate that dumpster fire. Here is a third party audit done after FOS for ACPA as sort of a post-crash report.

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 136211.pdf


Ray Hall; we’ve met, your a hyper intelligent person who I deeply disagree with. No one can argue that you didn’t do tremendous amounts of good for the membership over the decades. However your sole legacy from now until the end of ACPA will be as the man who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

[Raymond Hall]

Ray Hall; we’ve met, your a hyper intelligent person who I deeply disagree with. No one can argue that you didn’t do tremendous amounts of good for the membership over the decades. However your sole legacy from now until the end of ACPA will be as the man who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

You give me far more credit than I deserve. Here's some homework for you. Review the list of members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee in 2011, all of who represented the Association opposing pilots working past age 60, then check their status, post 2012, when mandatory retirement was repealed by the government.

You shouldn't find it surprising that most, if not all of them, elected to work beyond age 60, at or near the top end of the seniority list, operating the highest paying jobs, until they were finally forced out at age 65, adversely impacting the promotion of pilots junior to them, including yourself. It will give you a beautiful example of hypocrisy.

Golden egg? An extra 5 years for you at close to $300,000 per year, and the ability to top up your pension to 35 years maximum and your best 60 consecutive months at that salary? I don't see too many pilots crying in their soup now.