Layoffs... True?

[tonysoprano]

Tony.
Equipment bid comes out in Dec. Won't be long before all the rumors start swirling. Here's one that is not rumor but fact: I've been told the three '67 fins that were removed on the last bid never left the property and will be re-instated on the next bid. That in itself will help mitigate any surpluses (if any to begin with). Also bear in mind we are coming up to the highest level of retirements starting in 2010 through 2014. And that's without my rose-colored glasses.
Tony, relax.
Tony.

[the original tony]

Thanks boss, had a feeling if anyone had an honest, educated answer it would be you.
I'm not looking for good news, just accurate. If it's good, i'll take it!!
Thanks again.

safe flying

Tony

[Brick Head]

Yes there are 3 767's staying that had already been removed on prior bids.

But is it true they are making them all economy? Specific destinations in Europe for summer? Winter destinations all sun????????

YYC- HNL by chance?

[whiteguy]

Yes there are 3 767's staying that had already been removed on prior bids.

But is it true they are making them all economy? Specific destinations in Europe for summer? Winter destinations all sun????????

YYC- HNL by chance?

Not all economy but more seats with a domestic J class. They're getting refurbished but no lay flat J seats and no in seat entertainment.

[Old fella]

Yes there are 3 767's staying that had already been removed on prior bids.

But is it true they are making them all economy? Specific destinations in Europe for summer? Winter destinations all sun????????

YYC- HNL by chance?

Keep the fares reasonable and I bet you will have no trouble filling those seats. As for the yield, hopefully that will will be reasonable(for your airline) so as you can continue. For what it is worth, the travelling public do like the idea of "wide body" a/c for trips 5hrs+, at least that is the opinions I heard. A B767 is a nice airplane to fly on

[Matra Magic]

I don't mind if some guys want to fly over 60 with the following conditions...

- right seat on the EMB
- 2 years on flat pay

any candidates ?

guys... stay at home and take care of your family before you die... life is too short !

Matra Magic

[DocAV8R]

Move over boys- the men are coming back! And they will be bringing their families along on the flights with them.

[Rockie]

I don't mind if some guys want to fly over 60 with the following conditions...

- right seat on the EMB
- 2 years on flat pay

any candidates ?

guys... stay at home and take care of your family before you die... life is too short !

Matra Magic

Every single month this issue gets more complicated as pilots continue to get shoved out the door. I respectfully suggest that some damned serious thinking beyond this kind of stuff start occurring among our pilot group, because there will be not much to laugh about if this continues.

[the original tony]

It's true, our group should do some damn serious thinking about this situation. I beleive KLM still forces retirement at 55, correct me if i am mistaken. If this is true, why not follow them? Sounds like as good an idea as any.
Don't pick the rules that work to your selfishness, pick all or none. No pension and years of service pay. Roll it all into one, and now you have a company that is "getting with the times"

You're 60, leave. There is no shortage of pilots that can do your job. You wouldn't be here if others didn't bow out graciously and respectfully to allow you to get into this position you don't want to relinquish.
If this is the case, do medicals on all retired guys, bar no age. If they can return, bring them back, and these "big boys" will be back on rsv on the 320. After all, lets be fair.

Tony

[Rockie]

You only see what you want to see Tony and are completely missing the big picture. 60+ isn't coming...it's here. The longer we take to implement it the more pain there will be for the company and us as a pilot group.

Your wants and wishes are irrelevant. My wants and wishes are irrelevant. The wants and wishes of 3200 pilots and Air Canada corporation are irrelevant. People have tried to get it through to our group that 60+ was coming and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Our union, our pilots and our company didn't listen. Now it is here, and there is nothing anybody can do to turn it back. Our union, our pilots and our company still don't get it.

Are we really that stupid?

One other thing, have you considered even for one second the reasons why 60+ might be a good thing, or like everybody else are you only concerned about the next bid?

[the original tony]

I'll be honest with you, i don't care what the next bid does, my position cannot get any lower on the pole.
I am worried about layoffs and trying to get seniority. Guys that are 55 are trying to get to the seat they thought was theirs for the past so many years, and are now told no dice. Unless you stay longer. If this is the precedent that is now set, let it happen.
First get it implemented in the millitary where forced retirement is 60, all over Canada i want it on the books. Otherwise our company has a valid claim that it is being discriminated against, solely as the one outfit that has to bust the 60 rule. Forget unions and contracts, they no longer carry any water.
Negotiations are now a joke. All i have to do is cry wolf and I'll get what i want. If I was a minority with a disability i shold be CEO, CP and all wrapped into one, or i cry discrimination.
All rules from crew rest to layovers to duty time should now be implemented by the tribunal who luckily have the brains to judge, but no balls to implement, not even a recommendation.
This shit was turned down once, and when it was sent back, some jellyfish passed it. So this is the end?
Then let it be the end to forced retirements in Canada, not just Air Canada.

Tony

[DocAV8R]

Tony wrote

Then let it be the end to forced retirements in Canada, not just Air Canada.

That's what we've been trying to tell you= It Is! What don't you get?

[Rockie]

Then let it be the end to forced retirements in Canada, not just Air Canada.

I don't mean to be insulting, but please do some reading. Forced retirement has already ended in Canada in pretty much every jurisdiction, and any holdouts will soon get in line too. So if that's what you're waiting for then you can stop waiting. Air Canada's retirement policy is an anachronism that has now been declared illegal. It's a shame we are so short-sighted we cannot see the benefits to our pensions and standard of living by stopping forced retirement. As I've said many times there are very good reasons why this needs to happen, but since we'll never make that decision ourselves it's a good thing the HRTC made it for us. Like a parent the HRTC has made us do something for our own good that we are too immature to see for ourselves.

We have not been asked to end forced retirement, we have been told to.

[HavaJava]

So Rockie,

I hear you preaching on and on about how ACPA should have seen this coming and how we should have done something about it...

Well, what are your suggestions now...instead of talking down to the vast majority of pilots who disagree whole-heartedly with this, why not offer some actual real suggestions as to how we can make this work for everyone.

*edit - My temper got the better of me for a second there *

[Rockie]

So Rockie,

I hear you preaching on and on about how ACPA should have seen this coming and how we should have done something about it...

Well, what are your suggestions now...instead of talking down to the vast majority of pilots who disagree whole-heartedly with this, why not offer some actual real suggestions as to how we can make this work for everyone.

*edit - My temper got the better of me for a second there *

I have provided pages and pages of suggestions. Go back and research them because I don't have the time right now to say it all again.

[HavaJava]

Rockie,

I have waded through your waist-deep swamp of smug and condescending posts and the only solutions you seem to have are status pay, which you agree brings just as many problems and the ALPA model...

neither of these seem like viable solutions to the current problem...you will win a lot more support if you can come up with ideas that offer some sort of compromise to all levels of ACPA membership.

And don't say that we (as in the vast majority of ACPA pilots) aren't offering solutions...we are...you just don't like them because they don't necessarily offer more windfall benefits for the +60 crowd.

[Rockie]

Rockie,

I have waded through your waist-deep swamp of smug and condescending posts and the only solutions you seem to have are status pay, which you agree brings just as many problems and the ALPA model...

neither of these seem like viable solutions to the current problem...you will win a lot more support if you can come up with ideas that offer some sort of compromise to all levels of ACPA membership.

And don't say that we (as in the vast majority of ACPA pilots) aren't offering solutions...we are...you just don't like them because they don't necessarily offer more windfall benefits for the +60 crowd.

"Continue to fight against it"

That's the only solution ACPA and anybody else offers up besides driving 60+ pilots to the bottom. That works great in your world, but here in the real world there is a lot more to it. You have not waded through my posts because if you had you would have seen many, many suggestions. But I suspect if you had read it you would not see it anyway because you don't want to.

Prior to the ruling I have provided links to ALPA's approach to this problem. "But this isn't the US" you cry. So what. The principles are the same. I have suggested ACPA start looking at ways to mitigate the impact to current pilots, but they haven't, and you apparently didn't see that suggestion in your comprehensive wade through my waist deep swamp of smug and condescending posts. You also didn't see my suggestions for a course of action after the ruling for both ACPA and the company. Maybe the problem is you don't read all that well, or you just can't see what you don't want to see. Whatever.

I am not responsible to educate you. ACPA is responsible to inform you of all the permutations but they haven't done that either. And you're responsible to yourself to use the brain in your head and give this a lot of serious thought. Don't expect everyone to hold your hand and lead you along.

And finally, this is a done deal forced by people with more authority than you, ACPA or the company. Get with the program.

[ram]

Just because you (and about 70 of your +60 group) keep telling yourself it's a "done deal"...doesn't make it fact!

Whatever makes you happy though!!! after all, it's all about you...don't pretend that you care about mitigating any losses...anybody with a grade 9 education, can see straight through that.

My guess is... "So will the Supreme Court"!

[Rockie]

Just because you (and about 70 of your +60 group) keep telling yourself it's a "done deal"...doesn't make it fact!

Whatever makes you happy though!!! after all, it's all about you...don't pretend that you care about mitigating any losses...anybody with a grade 9 education, can see straight through that.

My guess is... "So will the Supreme Court"!

This is what I mean by not thinking. Most people against 60+ are focused on attaching blame to a few boogeymen. You wrongly assume anybody who disagrees with you is one of the people who have filed a complaint, or at least is approaching retirement. In my case you are wrong on both counts. You also assume there are very few people who are for 60+. Again you are wrong. You assume this is about greed, and again you are wrong...except as it applies to you.

Your opinion is a kneejerk reaction to what you percieve as a stalling of your career progression, and you give not one seconds thought to how this may benefit not only the pilot group and our pension, but you in particular. You cannot concieve of what your life may be like in 20 years, you only think about that next upgrade in pay. On that I attach equal blame to the union because their ill-considered opposition to this is rooted in the same kneejerk reaction to their own career progression. No thought went into this when it was coming, and no thought is going into it now that it's here.

There has been no examination of the long term effects and benefits of this. No consideration given by our union (or by the individual it effects) to demographic changes from when the pension was concieved. No consideration given to the constantly increasing strain on our DB pension, and how increasing the retirement age will help decrease that pressure. Our pilot group and our union live in this self-induced introspective little bubble where we think we are immune to this sea change that is happening not only in our profession, but every aspect of the developed world. We continue to try and live in the past despite events steam rolling over us.

And worst of all, we are incapable of recognizing not only a battle that can't realistically be won (and shouldn't be), but when we've actually lost that battle. We have our heads rammed so far up our selfish, greedy, narrowminded little asses that we cannot even see when continuing to fight this has reached the point of embarrassing delusion.

Mandatory retirement is now illegal in almost every jurisdiction in Canada. Even an idiot can see which way this is going, yet somehow you cling to this union driven hope that the Supreme Court will slap themselves in the forehead and reverse this terrible mistake the developed world has been making in ending mandatory retirement. And why? So that you can advance to that next seat like you were expecting of course.

[Dockjock]

I'm pretty sure the old 767's will be used for the recently announced Barcelona and Athens flying next summer. And also the YYC-HNL this winter.

[the original tony]

Well, I stand corrected. EVERYWHERE in Canada works till they die. Even the millitary.
Speaking of old systems like retiring, how about db pensions? Those, all over Canada are going away too, have you heard? All the airlines are giving them up, or changing them, lets do it. I like change, afterall its for my own good.
How about you stay till you're dead, give up your pension and then we will be a more modern company?
No more bull, we don't need to accept this ruling, since it was judged properly the first time around. More or less, F*^% off you greedy suckers. People cry and its overturned.
Still doesn't make it right.
I really don't care about working till i'm 100 with the best pension in the milky way if i can't feed my family now. That is to say in 30 years the pension is even here. If you told someone in 1980 that in 2008 oil is going to be 145 a barrel, a ticket to Asia is half the current price and we would all be making less than we did 15 years ago they would have put you away. Change is coming, and I can now see that it is definetly for the good of everybody.
I'm done.

Tony

[Rockie]

We cannot turn the clock back on this, nor should we for very good reasons that will make themselves known to you in time since you are unable to see them for yourself now. But that does not mean working until you're 100, or 90, or 80, or even 70. Although 70 may come to pass some day.

What the union and the company should be doing...right F'in now...is making the case for a BFOR of retirement at 65. It is a case that is easily made following the guidelines and criteria of the HRTC itself, and will prevent future costly and distracting challenges. Once that's done then we can get to work implementing this new reality (for that's what it is) in a way that satisfies peoples right to work beyond 60 yet preserves as much as possible the career expectations of those that still want to leave.

You will notice I said career expectations, not rights. Think about that.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

Would you just let it go, trying to tell others how to deal with the situation. PLEASE.

I will say this to you again for about the umpteenth time.

IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT AC WOULD GET RELIEF FROM THE LATEST RULING BASED ON A BFOR FOR POST AGE 65 PILOTS.

Can they be accommodated? Somehow? somewhere? If the answer is yes then based on the logic of the ruling there is no BFOR.

This ruling, as you know, went well beyond just setting a later retirement date. It is not our fault that the complainants sought to strike down the legality of mandatory retirement all together. It is not AC's or ACPA's fault that the burden of proof within the CHRT is on the respondent. It is not AC's or ACPA's fault that bar for proof is very high. It is not AC's fault that any and all evidence could not be presented to the board before the latest ruling wrt operational consequences. As a result it is not our fault that this will need to go to a court outside the Tribunal to get a reasonable resolution.

It is simply the way the system works.

I will say this to you one more time as well. Both ACPA and AC have concerns on how no retirement age at all will affect them both operationally and collectively. Both want to ensure collective bargaining rights are not hampered by the CHRT. To that end.

-Firstly they have chosen to challenge the CHRT right to ignore the CRA when they refused to apply the law, by not allowing an exemption to be used. An exemption written into the Charter by it's architects. An exemption with decades of historical use.

-Secondly assuming the ruling is not turned over (I am really not sure where the charter issue will go) make sure the CHRT does not interfere in collective bargaining. Not interfere in how post age 60 pilots will be accommodated both collectively and operationally.

You may not agree with the strategy. Too bad. It is ours to decide. Just like someone on your side of the fence decided to bring up a charter challenge.

[Rockie]

IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT AC WOULD GET RELIEF FROM THE LATEST RULING BASED ON A BFOR FOR POST AGE 65 PILOTS.

Says you. I think they will. But, we'll never know for sure until they try, and they aren't trying.

This ruling, as you know, went well beyond just setting a later retirement date.

As a matter of fact I do know that, which is why we should be working to put some limit on it based on BFOR. See above.

You may not agree with the strategy. Too bad. It is ours to decide.

It may have slipped your notice, but I am a voting member of this pilot group as well. Not someone on "that side of the fence". The union representing me decided on their own and before consulting the membership to fight this. When they put it out to a vote it was to obtain a mandate to do that without representing both sides of the debate. That is not what I would call democracy in action.

In the end though it doesn't matter. We have been given our marching orders by an organization bigger than we are. How we implement it is our business (provided it isn't discriminatory in some other way) and the HRTC doesn't care what kind of pay scheme we have in place. Our job is to comply.

Continuing to fight it after the ruling is putting us in an even worse position each and every month, and you can bet your ass I will not shut up about it no matter how tired of hearing about it
you are.

[sepia]

Rockie: Are you this much fun on layovers too?