CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[accumulous]

How many times through your career did you personally agree to mandatory retirement through the process of collective bargaining? 10 times maybe? At every renewal you where a party to an agreement that imposed mandatory retirement on others. A bit ironic actually.

So just for clarification then, now that V-K have been offered reinstatement, and with the signing of the next contract, assuming there is a general Cease and Desist order in place, will all pilots be agreeing to having no Mandatory Retirement in place??

[Brick Head]

So just for clarification then, now that V-K have been offered reinstatement, and with the signing of the next contract, assuming there is a general Cease and Desist order in place, will all pilots be agreeing to having no Mandatory Retirement in place??

If the recent MOA outlining V&K's return had not been signed on a without prejudice basis, we would have all agreed to it last Friday.

But yes you have the right idea. We vote yes as a group? We all agree to it even if you said no personally or didn't bother to vote. Just like anything else in the CA. I don't like the reserve rules so I vote no? Too bad the majority agreed to them. The collective said yes. By being part of the union I therefor also said yes, I agreed to those rules.

[Raymond Hall]

If the recent MOA outlining V&K's return had not been signed on a without prejudice basis, we would have all agreed to it last Friday.

What do you mean, "we?" You and the other two members of the Age 60 Committee?

If "we" would have all agreed to it last Friday, prior to letting anyone know that it existed, "we" could only have been someone directly involved in putting it forward to the Company.

So at least now we know where you are coming from.

[Brick Head]

If the recent MOA outlining V&K's return had not been signed on a without prejudice basis, we would have all agreed to it last Friday.

What do you mean, "we?" You and the other two members of the Age 60 Committee?

If "we" would have all agreed to it last Friday, prior to letting anyone know that it existed, "we" could only have been someone directly involved in putting it forward to the Company.

So at least now we know where you are coming from.

How about we means the collective we? The association I belong to?

I have already responded to this. If you think I am committing some sort of impropriety? Out me.

Just make sure you substantiate any allegation you make.

[Raymond Hall]

How about we means the collective we? The association I belong to?

No-o-o. I don't think so. Can't be "the association" that you belong to. That would require an IVR vote, and that takes at least 10 days from the date that the vote is published and opened. Couldn't have been agreed to on Friday. So, you obviously didn't mean that.

"[T]he collective we?" That means either the Age 60 Committee or the MEC or both. And an MEC vote requires at least a conference call, if not a meeting, and there is no certainty that that vote, if held, would pass, at least without a great deal of debate, even if a conference call were convened. So, by "the collective we," you didn't mean the MEC either.

So then, what does that leave us, sir? Somebody from the Age 60 Committee posting here throughout this entire hearing process for the last several years, purporting to appear as an anonymous poster, with an obvious pro-ACPA agenda. The only question that remains is whether your participation here was (is?) sanctioned by the remainder of the Age 60 Committee, the MEC, or both.

[UC-64A]

Funny how for the 30+ years prior to now it has been OK for pilots to retire at the age of 60, and now it is not !!

For the previous 30+ years that you agreed to a collective agreement with age 60 as a known and accepted retirement age !!

Let me ask you this, when you signed up at the ripe young age did you not agree to the conditions of that contract with full understanding of what you were signing up for ?? Come on Ray, how's about a little disclosure of your knowledge regarding the negotiated contract at the time you signed up. You all started at AC knowing full well that you would retire at the age of 60 !!
All the advancement of that career you all enjoyed was based on the entire pilot group retiring at the age of 60 or earlier. That is for greater then 30 years you all had the benefit of advancement, pay and aircraft type changes thanks to those who retired before you.

Look at the average years of service of the retirees posted, 32-40 years of service based on the age of 60 for retirement you all can do the math to figure out the age they were at the time of starting at AC.( pretty fruitfull careers !!) Some of you may not even have had a license at the time you signed up in your late teens !!!

So answer me this, how do you feel the remainder of that pilot group is not going to be negatively affected based on what they signed up for ?? timely advancement of their careers based on retirements given the fact that the average age of start today is 35ish with family, trying ever so hard to pay the bills on 2 years of flat salary while their kids ear kraft dinner to survive. These new hires will never see the good years !!

Fly til ya die baby !!!

[UC-64A]

Ray - did your part number end in 007 ???

HAHAHA you makin' me laugh.

[tailgunner]

Ray..
You say that V + K are in " a position worse than the PG" . Please justify that statement. Is it the 1-2 seniority number, is it the choice of holidays, pairings etc, or is it the 165 000 per year salary? I think anyone in the horrible PG would make that trade.
Also, you were hired at the age of 24...Assuming you did a 4 year university degree before that, how much time/experience did you actually have before you reached AC? I understand that you completed your law degree while flying at AC..How did you find the time? Most guys now are putting in 16 - 18 days a month to get their time in....you must have had one great sked.
Boy have times changed.

[sepia]

In my eyes being #1 on the emj FO list for equal pay would be FAR nicer than on the 777 FO list. Your days worked would be very similar if not identical, and you'd never miss sleeping in your own bed if you didn't want to. Someone who's on the cusp of death might enjoy not living the insomniac life.

[Lost in Saigon]

Someone who's on the cusp of death might enjoy not living the insomniac life.

Are you seriously a Moderator here?

Who moderates the Moderators?

[Brick Head]

How about we means the collective we? The association I belong to?

No-o-o. I don't think so. Can't be "the association" that you belong to. That would require an IVR vote, and that takes at least 10 days from the date that the vote is published and opened. Couldn't have been agreed to on Friday. So, you obviously didn't mean that.

"[T]he collective we?" That means either the Age 60 Committee or the MEC or both. And an MEC vote requires at least a conference call, if not a meeting, and there is no certainty that that vote, if held, would pass, at least without a great deal of debate, even if a conference call were convened. So, by "the collective we," you didn't mean the MEC either.

So then, what does that leave us, sir? Somebody from the Age 60 Committee posting here throughout this entire hearing process for the last several years, purporting to appear as an anonymous poster, with an obvious pro-ACPA agenda. The only question that remains is whether your participation here was (is?) sanctioned by the remainder of the Age 60 Committee, the MEC, or both.

Raymond,

Allowing non fact based assumptions into analysis, as if they substantiated fact. Or discarding substantiated fact based on assumption, guarantees a conclusion that at the very best is highly questionable. It might even be nonsensical.

[Raymond Hall]

Allowing non fact based assumptions into analysis, as if they substantiated fact. Or discarding substantiated fact based on assumption, guarantees a conclusion that at the very best is highly questionable. It might even be nonsensical.

Or, as in the circumstances here, the conclusion might be dead on!

In the book and the movie, All The President's Men, when the White House was confronted with accusations that were entirely correct, the response to the allegations was what the reporters Bernstein and Woodward called, "non-denial denials." They couldn't deny the facts, but they did their best to avoid admitting the allegations.

Go ahead, sir. Tell us categorically as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

[Brick Head]

Go ahead, sir. Tell us categorically as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

OK.

I categorically state, as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

Your barking up the wrong tree.

[Raymond Hall]

I categorically state, as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Nixon.

[Glen Quagmire]

I am almost 100% certain that Brick Head is not on the age 60 commitee, he made a post here once and the exact same one on the ACPA forum and that name is not one that is on the commitee. So hopefully Ray that isn't the only thing you are wrong about.

[yycflyguy]

Go ahead, sir. Tell us categorically as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

OK.

I categorically state, as a matter of fact, that you are not one of the three members of the ACPA Age 60 Committee.

Your barking up the wrong tree.

LOL.

Thanks for a little levity in this.

Hey Ray, when you are done with the discriminatory practices for those poor old souls over 60 could you represent the New hire group (say hired post 2005, in their mid 30s with around 7,000 hours experience) and the case I am going to bring against the senior membership who imposed flat pay, position pay and work lousy conditions compared to 777 FOs? I believe I should have been pared comparably to a 777 FO as my responsibility level was the same and was obviously discriminated against simply for having a lower seniority number. I also want to include a 30% premium against those who return to service and stagnate career progression... we'll call it even for the extra 5% hit the Airbus took and the 25% across the board reduction in pay that my senior members "negotiated" for me.

Poor little babies don't want to be EMJ FOs for 777 wages and all the perks of being seniority 1 & 2. Boohoo

[mduffy]

Domestic flying for overseas wages. Being paid more than any Captain on your equipment and making 5 times more than some of your colleagues. Writing your own schedule. Didn't someone say this wasn't about fairness?

[Max111]

So i guess it wasn't about the money !!

[yycflyguy]

So i guess it wasn't about the money !!

Well it certainly isn't about the joy of flying. They both passed on the opportunity to get lots of stick time and cycles on the Embraer so it wasn't about the love of flying. They view Embraer pilots as "second class" citizens (grunts) that they hold themselves above. Obviously superior aviators who only deserve top pay, top seniority on the top equipment for their hardship.

Something about having your cake and eating it too. Babies.

[Max111]

So lets see Calgary Guy..........It wasn't about the money....... approximately $100,000.00. Then maybe it could be about "character".............Ahhhh, no that couldn't be it...thats impossible...You must be right !

[yycflyguy]

So lets see Calgary Guy..........It wasn't about the money....... approximately $100,000.00. Then maybe it could be about "character".............Ahhhh, no that couldn't be it...thats impossible...You must be right !

How do you figure $100,000? What's the relevance of that number?

Their uplift difference between what their pension pays and what they would get on the EMJ (at 777 wages) is a few hundred dollars a month more. Plus all the benefits of Seniority 1 & 2... and they said "no".

"Character"? Bwahahaahahahahahah. Good one. These greedy, self-entitled, egocentric, narrow-minded "characters" are indeed a contradiction to the word "character". Next you will try to say that they are of high moral fabric.

Like Ray says "This ain't about fairness!!!"

[yycflyguy]

Someone who's on the cusp of death might enjoy not living the insomniac life.

Are you seriously a Moderator here?

Who moderates the Moderators?

The inmates are running the asylum. Sorta like those with dementia will be running the EMB. At least it will be like a new destination every day!! Toronto? Great! Never been there before!

(*no offence intended to those with dementia; or those operating the Embraer; or those under 60 with dementia operating the Embraer;or to anyone with a family member with dementia; or anyone with a family member with dementia operating an Embraer) - There, that should cover it.

[Max111]

Hmmmmmmm...You do have a sense of humour, I liked that!
But appears you need some help on your math skills.

[Localizer]

Anyone thought about a cull on the 60+ group? ..

Or a cull on the late baby-boomers? .. On the grounds they're going to bankrupt our society and cause present/future, labour and financial hardships?

[beast]

Anyone thought about a cull on the 60+ group? ..

That won't be necessary...studies have shown that those who "choose" to work into their mid and late 60's have an enormously decreased life expectancy relative to those who leave full-time work earlier, and that isn't taking into account a high stress/fatigue job role

So, fortunately this problem won't be very long lasted...