2nd Job

[Bede]

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."

That's a fair defense. But, like I've mentioned before, it just reinforces my previous criticism that I can't figure out where in the solicitor-client relationship you sit. Are you the solicitor or a party with a law degree who represents others by virtue of your law degree? Honestly, I worry about a costs award against you personally. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I follow some of these claims and shake my head. I can't see an objective lawyer carrying this fight on as long as you have.

[Raymond Hall]

...I can't figure out where in the solicitor-client relationship you sit. Are you the solicitor or a party with a law degree who represents others by virtue of your law degree? Honestly, I worry about a costs award against you personally. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I follow some of these claims and shake my head. I can't see an objective lawyer carrying this fight on as long as you have.

A lawyer doesn't have to be paid or even have a formal retainer agreement in order to be counsel of record for a party, or to be deemed to be in a solicitor-client relationship. The professional Code of Conduct, which is public and available for viewing on all of the provincial Law Societies' web sites is explicit in that regard. Holding oneself out as representing a client is sufficient, and certainly, filing proceedings on behalf of a litigant seals the relationship, regardless of retainer.

Costs are awarded against parties, not against counsel. There are situations where the Court may order costs against a lawyer personally, but those circumstances require some form of egregious behavior on the part of the lawyer, such as wilful contempt of court. And even in those circumstances, the awarding of costs against a counsel personally is exceptional.

You might have a point regarding any objective lawyer continuing to act on this issue as long as I have. Candidly I can state that my loving spouse shares the same sentiment.

[Sharklasers]

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.

Your too intelligent to believe that this is a one sided issue, it isn’t a ‘extra 5 years’ at the top if it takes 5 more years to get there.
A lot of those gentlemen stayed past 60 in order to enjoy those 5 years at the front of the trough and max out their pensions, things they could have done between the ages of 55-60 like all those who came before. They had to stay, thanks in large part to you.

You don’t see too many pilots crying in their soup? They CONSTANTLY bitch about it (and you), the demographic between 50-60 especially who have to work past 60 to go without penalty on top of having their careers stalled out for 5 years while the top guys got to enjoy 5 more years at the front of the line. I’m honestly shocked you don’t know or pretend not to know how much of the pilot group feels about you. I’ve seen you cruise through the Vancouver airport leaving a wake of mumbling angry pilots. The mere sight of you makes their day that much worse, a sign of a successful lawyer if there ever was one.

You won. it’s over (till fly to you die). But let’s not pretend there were no losers on your quest to destroy one of the best things about this job.

[Raymond Hall]

You won. it’s over (till fly to you die). But let’s not pretend there were no losers on your quest to destroy one of the best things about this job.

Please tell me where you would have stood on the issue, back in the 1950's, when the mandatory retirement age for pilots was changed from 45 to 60. Would you have opposed that change as well?

['97 Tercel]

IMO mandatory retirement isn't discriminatory - a pilot's age is an occupational qualification, once you hit a certain number you're not qualified anymore.

The lawyers are the only winners.

$$$

[Raymond Hall]

They CONSTANTLY bitch about it (and you), the demographic between 50-60 especially who have to work past 60 to go without penalty..

That is categorically incorrect. Air Canada and ACPA have both maintained that "the normal age of retirement" remains age 60. There is presently no penalty to the pension for retiring at age 60. There is only an option to stay. You can leave, with no penalty whatsoever, and no impact on your pension.

More importantly, Air Canada and this litigation were entirely incidental to the social change wave that was overtaking the legislation and public policy. I would love to take credit for the government's decision to end mandatory retirement, but get real. Could you or I or anyone accomplish that?

With respect to the stagnation resulting from the change, two things. First, I was unsuccessful, despite all the litigation, of getting Air Canada and ACPA to end mandatory retirement at age 60. That was done by the federal government in its decision to change the law that affected the entire federal jurisdiction, including the banking industry, the telecommunications industry, the shipping industry and so many others.
Do you honestly believe that the government changed the law to satisfy disgruntled force-retired Air Canada pilots? Dream on.

What I pleaded before the company, the union, the Tribunal and the Courts was that this was coming. You can't avoid it. Every jurisdiction in Canada except the federal jurisdiction had already gone there. Don't keep your head in the sand. And to Air Canada, my message was not only that it was inevitable, but that it was economically beneficial. For the life of me, I could never understand why Air Canada opposed it, financially.

My message landed on deaf ears. Air Canada continued to fight the change. Nevertheless, the numbers were fateful. Evidence?

Have a look at Air Canada's 2013 Annual Report, in particular at Note 3 to the financial statements, where it states, "In the third quarter of 2012, Air Canada recorded an operating expense reduction of $127 million related to changes to the terms of the ACPA collective agreement pertaining to retirement age." $127 millon!

The airline was forced by the government to save $127 million by eliminating pilot retirement at age 60. And what percent of that saving did ACPA get? Correct. Zero percent. And over a million dollars in legal fees to have the legislation end their opposition, resulting in no share of the company's windfall.

I didn't need a crystal ball. Everyone, or almost everyone could see that coming. But the junior pilots, such as yourself, were out on the beach holding up their hands opposing the tsunami, cursing me for telling you to take advantage of the opportunity to profit from the inevitable financial benefit that eventually went only to the employer.

Second, with regard to the stagnation, what you are suggesting is that one should never change. Never progress. Keep doing the same things, the same way, forever, despite the law prohibiting you for doing so. Unfortunately, when you take that position, the world will move on without you. As happened when the government instituted the change, without regard to your own particular issues.

So do you oppose it? Or do you recognize the trajectory and benefit from it? That was the question that I posed to ACPA. The union chose to ignore my suggestions and as a result got zero benefit from the change in mandatory retirement. They were well equipped to negotiate a change, to the pilots' benefit, in advance, but elected not to do so. So be it.

Curse me as you will. I honestly tried to suggest that you consider the entire context of this impending social change, and you not only failed to heed my advice, you now blame me for whatever adverse impact that that social change has had upon your career. Would it have been different, had I not brought these issues into the public domain? Not likely.

[Raymond Hall]

Double post. Deleted.

[Raymond Hall]

IMO mandatory retirement isn't discriminatory - a pilot's age is an occupational qualification, once you hit a certain number you're not qualified anymore.

Nice idea, but the law and science are against you.

Presently, in Canada, there is no mandatory retirement age for pilots, or for any other occupation, save for certain exceptions, provided by statute, such as the military. Transport Canada removed the restrictions on age limitations over 20 years ago, as a result of the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provisions of equality and prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age, in 1985.

The PPC and the licensing requirements relating to the ability to perform the job, including meeting the IFR standards, are all that are required. Age is irrelevant. Some of us can perform effectively at 75 or 80. Others fail at age 50. With tests every six months, that is more than sufficient to determine your continuing competency.

With the job changing to be more of a resource management job, rather than hands-and-feet, what is more important recently is the ability to digest information and to make effective, quality decisions, including crew resource management coordination decisions. When you engage the autopilot at 50 feet and disengage it on approach at around 1,000 feet, competency leans much more to decision-making than to physical dexterity.

In the USA, there is no maximum age limitation of judges. Which is why the U.S. Supreme Court has several over age 75, the age restriction for the equivalent jobs in Canada.

So, the job of a pilot, especially that of a Captain, is more a question of her ability to make effective, accurate, timely decisions. Which has little to do with age and more to do with knowledge, intuition, intelligence and experience. All of which function well for most people irrespective of their chronological age.

['97 Tercel]

If a 95 year old could get someone to sign a medical off and pass a ride should they be able to fly paying passengers?

A pilot's age is an occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the operation of an aircraft, and passenger safety has to be the primary consideration.

They got it wrong. But that happens...

[Rockie]

If a 95 year old could get someone to sign a medical off and pass a ride should they be able to fly paying passengers?

Of course they should, and in fact can. If one is medically (including cognitive ability) fit and competent they are as capable as you are. That of course depends on the veracity of the evaluations which also applies to you and everybody else, and I would argue that more frequent medical and competency evaluations are warranted. But if you pass...you pass.

Age is not relevant otherwise unless because of other factors the person is unemployable which would be a BFOR, and THAT is the only reason AC still retires at 65.

You can continue to believe forced retirement due to age alone is not discriminatory if you wish (because it hasn’t happened to you) but the world has left you behind.

[rudder]

When ICAO and the US DOT amended maximum certificate age to 65, the age 60 BFOR argument in Canada for airline pilots was dead.

Having this historical debate again is like clinging to a non-COVID career progression path. It happened. Get over it.

[Raymond Hall]

When ICAO and the US DOT amended maximum certificate age to 65, the age 60 BFOR argument in Canada for airline pilots was dead.

100% correct, except for the fact, as Rockie mentioned, that it still applies to Air Canada pilots at age 65. No tribunal or court is going to force an employer to employ pilots that can't operate over 85% of the flights by reason of the fact that those flights pass into, out of, or through USA airspace.

Ironically, prior to the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption, effective December 15, 2012, both Air Canada and ACPA filed, argued and appealed BFOR cases before the Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, costing hundreds of hours of litigation and tens of thousands of dollars for all parties in lawyers' fees and court costs.

Air Canada's argument was that it simply could not manage its scheduling given the restriction of the "Over-Under" rule. It lost that argument at the Tribunal in both hearings. ACPA argued that to repeal mandatory retirement would impose undue hardship on the junior pilots held back as a result of the repeal. That BFOR claim was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

Then, after spending so much effort pursuing those arguments in litigation, after the exemption was repealed, both Air Canada and ACPA simply ignored their prior positions and continued flying. Air Canada instead imposed a bidding restriction, precluding F/Os from operating wide-body aircraft while the Over-Under provision was still in effect. That led to more litigation that was eventually resolved long after the restriction was no longer imposed.

[garfield]

Check First Air or Air Yukon i'm pretty sure they still have captains over 70 flying. Nobody should force you to stop flying at X age if you want to continue and are still fit.

[Raymond Hall]

Check First Air or Air Yukon i'm pretty sure they still have captains over 70 flying. Nobody should force you to stop flying at X age if you want to continue and are still fit.

There are many Canadian airlines that operate entirely within domestica airspace, especially in the North. Of course they are all subject to the present Canadian law, and without a bona fide occupational requirement related to USA airspace, they cannot deny employment on the basis of age to any pilot who is properly licensed by Transport Canada.

[Bede]

...I can't figure out where in the solicitor-client relationship you sit. Are you the solicitor or a party with a law degree who represents others by virtue of your law degree? Honestly, I worry about a costs award against you personally. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I follow some of these claims and shake my head. I can't see an objective lawyer carrying this fight on as long as you have.

A lawyer doesn't have to be paid or even have a formal retainer agreement in order to be counsel of record for a party, or to be deemed to be in a solicitor-client relationship. The professional Code of Conduct, which is public and available for viewing on all of the provincial Law Societies' web sites is explicit in that regard. Holding oneself out as representing a client is sufficient, and certainly, filing proceedings on behalf of a litigant seals the relationship, regardless of retainer.

Costs are awarded against parties, not against counsel. There are situations where the Court may order costs against a lawyer personally, but those circumstances require some form of egregious behavior on the part of the lawyer, such as wilful contempt of court. And even in those circumstances, the awarding of costs against a counsel personally is exceptional.

You might have a point regarding any objective lawyer continuing to act on this issue as long as I have. Candidly I can state that my loving spouse shares the same sentiment.

Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not accusing you of any unethical conduct or in providing anything other than vigorous advocacy to your clients. From my limited experience (a handful of small claims court actions and traffic ticket defenses for family/friends*), the nuts and bolts of the legal profession is quite easy provided you have reasonable communication skills and a dedication to understanding the law and the process. However, I would never represent myself knowing what I know now, despite my love of DIY-everything. A lawyer's greatest contribution to their client is, IMO, their ability to offer their unbiased opinion. That's very difficult to do when there's an emotional investment in the cause or the client.

* Done many years ago, for free, for fun. Never lost.

[TT1900]

IMO mandatory retirement isn't discriminatory - a pilot's age is an occupational qualification, once you hit a certain number you're not qualified anymore.

Nice idea, but the law and science are against you.

Presently, in Canada, there is no mandatory retirement age for pilots, or for any other occupation, save for certain exceptions, provided by statute, such as the military.

Even the military, though not legally obligated to do so, has seen the light and is allowing pilots to extend beyond 60 provided they meet the medical & fitness standards. Rightly so. If someone can safely and effectively perform a job they should not be tossed based on age.

[Inverted2]

Absolutely nothing wrong with flying to 65 and after that do it privately or corporate till you wish. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There’s no perfect age number that will make everyone happy. My goal is to be out of the airlines by 60 if finances allow. I do want to move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of my career. Many of us have spent more than our fair share at the bottom while we see our more senior colleagues enjoy a better schedule as well they benefited from age 60 retirements in the past.

The Coronavirus is going to set our career advancement back by several years and force many out of the profession permanently.

[Raymond Hall]

Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not accusing you of any unethical conduct or in providing anything other than vigorous advocacy to your clients. ... A lawyer's greatest contribution to their client is, IMO, their ability to offer their unbiased opinion. That's very difficult to do when there's an emotional investment in the cause or the client.

Understood and agreed. The solicitor-client relationship begins with the first contact. It is critical that the lawyer be honest not only with the client but with himself or herself, and keep a clear separation between the client's cause and the lawyer's personal interest or bias. That's why some lawyers will choose to represent clients like Paul Bernardo, Charles Manson, or Clifford Olson. It's not about the lawyer—it's about the law.

From the outset of the mandatory retirement proceedings I maintained two clear arguments on behalf of my clients. First, the retirement policy did not meet the requirements of the statutory exemption. Second, it was in both Air Canada's and ACPA's interest to adapt to the impending repeal as early as possible, both economically and ethically. Fourteen years later, I can't say that I have been persuaded that those arguments did not have substantial merit.

[Rockie]

Absolutely nothing wrong with flying to 65 and after that do it privately or corporate till you wish. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There’s no perfect age number that will make everyone happy. My goal is to be out of the airlines by 60 if finances allow. I do want to move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of my career. Many of us have spent more than our fair share at the bottom while we see our more senior colleagues enjoy a better schedule as well they benefited from age 60 retirements in the past.

The Coronavirus is going to set our career advancement back by several years and force many out of the profession permanently.

You should re-read what you just wrote. Your stated goal is to retire at 60, move up the seniority list and have a nice schedule for the last 10 years of your career. For that to happen people above you need to leave, and you are only willing to tolerate their presence on the list until they turn 65. When someone reaches that age you want them gone and you don’t care if they’re still capable of doing their job or not.

You want retirement based on age and that is now illegal. You’ll understand why it’s illegal the first time someone suggests you’re too old to do something you know you can still do better than them.

[Inverted2]

I ain’t re reading anything.

A college kid recently asked me when I’m retiring and I’m only 42. I felt so triggered.

[shimmydampner]

A lot of those gentlemen stayed past 60 in order to enjoy those 5 years at the front of the trough and max out their pensions
...
You don’t see too many pilots crying in their soup? They CONSTANTLY bitch about it

'Bitch' is certainly the operative word here. Since when does anyone owe it to their coworkers to retire early so that someone else can take the job/salary/benefits they worked (and wish to continue working) for? As if you would, out of pure altruism, leave >$1mil on the table for the good of some snot nosed millennial you don't know? Get real. So you're life isn't exactly as gravy as you want it to be right this very minute? Boo effin' hoo. Maybe it has something to do with that wasted time and effort "CONSTANTLY" bitching about how other people's moderate success is hampering your own.

[Sharklasers]

A lot of those gentlemen stayed past 60 in order to enjoy those 5 years at the front of the trough and max out their pensions
...
You don’t see too many pilots crying in their soup? They CONSTANTLY bitch about it

'Bitch' is certainly the operative word here. Since when does anyone owe it to their coworkers to retire early so that someone else can take the job/salary/benefits they worked (and wish to continue working) for? As if you would, out of pure altruism, leave >$1mil on the table for the good of some snot nosed millennial you don't know? Get real. So you're life isn't exactly as gravy as you want it to be right this very minute? Boo effin' hoo. Maybe it has something to do with that wasted time and effort "CONSTANTLY" bitching about how other people's moderate success is hampering your own.

Millennial? LOL.
I’m am referencing the 50 year olds who went through 9/11, SARS, CCAA and then the rules changed and they got to enjoy an extra 5 years in stasis because the rules changed right when they were traditionally supposed to move up to the big seat.
Right or wrong I think those people have earned the right to gripe.

[Rockie]

“Stasis”? You must be joking. We all enjoyed rapid growth and advancement thanks to the most successful period in this airlines’ history.

But you are correct, you have a right to gripe about the end of age discrimination in Canada. Wonderful things those rights.

['97 Tercel]

The end of age discrimination? For who?

When can you exercise the privileges of an ATPL? When can you legally buy alcohol? When can you vote? etc etc

- Because it's not prudent to allow a 14 year old to vote, just like it's not prudent to put an 80 year old in charge of a passenger aircraft.


It's easy, but they still got it wrong because "guarding every right I think I may have, at any cost" is the narrative of the day right now.

[Rockie]

The end of age discrimination? For who?

For you, which you will one day belatedly realize...maybe. By the time you’re near retirement you’re as likely to take the lack of age discrimination completely for granted and conveniently forget you were all for it as a thoughtless youngster. Just like the committee tasked with fighting the change who remarkably embraced it once it was done and they reached that age.

As for your underage examples, your parents probably explained the concepts of maturity and responsibility many times while you were growing up. Ask them to explain it again.