New "Air Canada Pilots Private Forum"

[fanspeed]

You should be glad these fellas are coming back-the longer an individual works, the shorter his/her lifespan. You guys can stop supporting them earlier because they will die earlier. Always an upside, isn't there?

[Kevin Russell]

I am not saying that things do not change, everything changes but it sure would be nice to have the same opportunities as those who went before us. I also am not advocating that current and future laws should not be complied with. And given this groups sense of entitlement I certainly do not expect them to feel any guilt.

I am simply calling a spade a spade. There are many cases of age discrimination in the workplace, and I don't have a problem with someone working past a certain age however in this case it is less about human rights and maintaining their position at the top and keeping all of the benefits that they gained from those retiring before them.

Kevin Russell, BBA
YYZ EMJ F/O
Mortgage Agent, M10000751
Dominion Lending Centres Bankfighter Inc. Licence #11129
Tel: 705 241 8283
email: krussell@bankfighter.com
website: http://kevinrussellmortgage.ca

[Mechanic787]

I don't have a problem with someone working past a certain age however in this case it is less about human rights and maintaining their position at the top and keeping all of the benefits that they gained from those retiring before them.

We still have the problem that you haven't addressed. Apparently you don't disagree that the law is applicable, but you want to keep fighting the case because you don't think that it is fair that your opponents should prevail for the wrong reasons.

Tribunals and courts can't be distracted by those types of considerations--they must apply the law.

So how would you propose reconciling the two positions? If you agree that the law will ultimately be imposed upon you, regardless of its apparent unfairness in your circumstances, wouldn't it be better to forego the litigation and attempt work within the law to find acceptable alternative solutions to the fairness problem?

From my limited experience in litigation, there are seldom any winners. Usually everyone loses, except for the lawyers and the judges. The only distinguishing characteristic of legal disputes, especially intra-organizational legal disputes, is that some lose more than others, and the organization usually loses big-time from the fractures and upheaval.

[Dockjock]

Tribunals don't make law, they make recommendations.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Tribunals don't make law, they make recommendations.

Are you serious, or are you just jerking our chains? If you are serious, have you bothered to read any of the posts on this or other related threads?

[bcflyer]

Following your logic and since its not a conspiracy as you so contest I can think of two names right off the bat who should receive an invitation as they are now officially Air Canada Pilots !

And how about the other 150 who should be eligible for access soon ?

Funny I just had a look and I don't see those two names on any seniority list, groundschool sked, sim sked or flying sked... Are you sure they are already active Air Canada pilots or are you just going by what the Age 60 group has said?

[PilotFlying]

I can accept the law argument; I cannot accept the fairness argument.

So, how would you see this dispute ever resolving itself, then, if the law argument prevails?

...

Other than relegating the returning or staying pilots to a subservient status, which on the face of it is similarly contrary to law, how does your union plan to deal with the consequences of an outcome that is based on law rather than on fairness?

I don't know how the union is going to deal with it - if there was an easy answer this issue would have been laid to rest a long time ago. Personally, I also don't know how to deal with it - otherwise I'd be a hero.

As I've already stated, the only 'fair' implementation that I can see is to restrict the scope of any change to retirment policies to new hires, which is the only way to avoid any significant financial and/or lifestyle penalties to the current workforce; however, since the law can't be selective, this would require those fighting for 60+ retirement to voluntarily agree to this method of implementation. The only way this would happen is if we would all operate according to the same set of morals and principles and, unfortunately, this is not the case - it never will be when we are dealing with human beings.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but that is because I don't have an answer. What is your 'fair' resolution, Mechanic787?

Cheers,

Chris

[Mechanic787]

As I've already stated, the only 'fair' implementation that I can see is to restrict the scope of any change to retirment policies to new hires, which is the only way to avoid any significant financial and/or lifestyle penalties to the current workforce; however, since the law can't be selective, this would require those fighting for 60+ retirement to voluntarily agree to this method of implementation.

I can't suggest any particular solution to your specific dispute. However, I do know from other conflicts that externally imposed solutions, especially externally imposed judicial or quasi-judicial solutions, are rarely optimal.

A complicating factor here is that you are dealing with a statutory scheme, not a negotiation scheme. Individuals and groups cannot contract out of statutory rights. So even if the main parties to this dispute were, as you suggest, to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise, there is nothing to stop some other members of the union from coming along immediately afterwards to insist on being accorded their full statutory rights. So whatever solution is contemplated must recognize that the statute is governing. Obviously that is problematic for many, in the specific circumstances of your dispute. Therein lies the rub.

One critical point that is difficult for any outsider to get their mind around with respect to your dispute is the question, what makes the Air Canada pilot group so different from every almost every other pilot group in Canada and the rest of the world who have not only accepted the removal of the age 60 restriction, but have adapted effectively to the change? If you can answer that question, especially in the context of the compensation scheme that appears to be at the core of your resistance to change, you might be on the road to an acceptable solution to your dispute.

Similarly, there is one other question that you might ask yourself. If the mandatory retirement exemption were repealed, as opposed to being struck down by the Court, what changes would you make to deal with the fairness issues? The answer to that question may very well provide you with solutions that you have not yet contemplated in the context of this litigation.

[Kevin Russell]

Mech787,

I am not a lawyer, maybe you are ,maybe your a pilot, or both, you might even just be some wannabe. I don't know. What I do know is that the complainants in this case are no different than the bully in the school yard, grade school is over and its time to move on.

Even the CHRT recognizes the unfairness of what is happening and the effect on junior members. I don't have the solution, I'll leave that to those smarter than me. I just know right from wrong.


Kevin Russell, BBA
YYZ EMJ F/O
Mortgage Agent, M10000751
Dominion Lending Centres Bankfighter Inc. Licence #11129
Tel: 705 241 8283
email: krussell@bankfighter.com
website: http://kevinrussellmortgage.ca

[Mechanic787]

I am not a lawyer, maybe you are ,maybe your a pilot, or both, you might even just be some wannabe. I don't know. ... Even the CHRT recognizes the unfairness of what is happening and the effect on junior members. I don't have the solution, I'll leave that to those smarter than me.

I hire lawyers. I prefer to hire them to keep me from getting into trouble, rather than to hire them to get me out of trouble. From my experience, one of the key factors that one must always keep in mind in dealing with lawyers has to do with the solicitor-client relationship. Namely, lawyers give advice. Clients give instructions. In order to properly instruct your lawyers, you have to properly educate yourself about the issues, and only part of that education should come from the advice that you receive from your lawyers, especially given their natural tendency to keep doing lawyer things, like litigating, at your expense. Often this means that you have to do a great deal of independent work to put the advice that you are receiving in proper context.

The CHRT, above all else, must apply the law as dictated in its governing statute. In your case, it found a contravention of the statute (in its words, a "discrimintory practice") that will be remedied in its forthcoming remedy decision. That decision, as I understand it, will, in addition to determining the amount of damages payable to the individuals, reinstate the employment of the two pilots who were subjected to the discriminatory practice. Let's wait for that decision to see what the Tribunal has to say, if anything, about the effect of that reinstatement on junior pilots.

[Takeoff OK]

Two predictions:

1) Age 60 retirement is dead. Sorry, I don't like it, but it's gone;
2) Medicals actually start becoming events. If we're going to allow pilots to fly until they die, then the Cat I is about to become harder to hold. No more breathing on a mirror. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But it's coming.

In the end, this may actually result in an increase in active pilots losing their medicals much sooner than they would have.

Thanks guys. Why couldn't you just go chill on your boat like you expected to when you started at Big Red?

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Two predictions: ...2) Medicals actually start becoming events. If we're going to allow pilots to fly until they die, then the Cat I is about to become harder to hold. No more breathing on a mirror. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But it's coming.

Message to those at the centre of the universe from someone on one of the orbiting planets:

Point #1: Transport Canada, not Air Canada, determines the medical standards and qualifications. Transport Canada has had no restriction on maximum pilot age for over two decades, and pilots have been allowed to fly without age restrictions since then. Despite that fact, there has been no age-related incident since the change became effective that would cause Transport Canada to view things differently now.

Point #2: The majority of airline pilots (ATPLs) in Canada do no even work for Air Canada.

The removal of the mandatory retirement policy at Air Canada will have thus no impact whatsoever on the medical standards that Transport Canada requires for pilot licensing.

[yycflyguy]

Two predictions: ...2) Medicals actually start becoming events. If we're going to allow pilots to fly until they die, then the Cat I is about to become harder to hold. No more breathing on a mirror. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But it's coming.

Message to those at the centre of the universe from someone on one of the orbiting planets:

Point #1: Transport Canada, not Air Canada, determines the medical standards and qualifications. Transport Canada has had no restriction on maximum pilot age for over two decades, and pilots have been allowed to fly without age restrictions since then. Despite that fact, there has been no age-related incident since the change became effective that would cause Transport Canada to view things differently now.

Point #2: The majority of airline pilots (ATPLs) in Canada do no even work for Air Canada.

The removal of the mandatory retirement policy at Air Canada will have thus no impact whatsoever on the medical standards that Transport Canada requires for pilot licensing.

Air Canada has its own medical department and TC qualified medical examiners who work for Air Canada.

[flyguycanuk]

Air Canada has its own medical department and TC qualified medical examiners who work for Air Canada.

True, but here's the loophole, there is no requirement to use AC's medical department. There is nothing stopping you from going to your own medical examiner instead.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Air Canada has its own medical department and TC qualified medical examiners who work for Air Canada.

Please re-read the first sentence of my Point #1 above. I don't know how much more clearly I could state it. Transport Canada, not Air Canada, determines the medical standards and qualifications for pilot licensing in Canada. Air Canada's medical requirements for pilot licensing cannot be more stringent than Transport Canada's licensing requirements. The standards are set by government regulation, not by company policy.

Air Canada's requirements for pilot hiring used to be more restrictive, in the old days, before anyone ever heard of human rights laws. Air Canada used to discriminate in hiring on the basis of medical restrictions such as the requirement for no visual correction as well as tighter restrictions on colour blindness. Several of us are still flying Beavers and Twin Otters in the north and in the bush, instead of Boeings and Airbuses overseas, as a result. It also used to discriminate on the basis of sex and height. It can't and doesn't do so any more.

So please, get some perspective. The laws, regulations and standards that apply to you guys (and gals) are the same laws, regulations and standards that apply to the rest of us in Canada. Aviation in Canada is larger than Air Canada. When you eventually are forced to deal with that fact, especially in regard to the anachronistic 1960's vintage age limit, you should treat it like the non-event that it is, even though you currently treat it as though the earth will crack open in front of you.

[yycflyguy]

Aviation in Canada is larger than Air Canada. When you eventually are forced to deal with that fact, especially in regard to the anachronistic 1960's vintage age limit, you should treat it like the non-event that it is, even though you currently treat it as though the earth will crack open in front of you.

Very colourful. You must be a fan of Armageddon and 2012 movies.

Nobody is as worked up as you make it sound. We are awaiting a Remedy release and a Judicial Review later this year to see what direction this will go.

It is a rather significant development as ALL federally regulated industries/companies will look to this outcome as precedence for labour law and Collective Bargaining in Canada. This is bigger than just age60 at AC. We get it.

Point #2: The majority of airline pilots (ATPLs) in Canada do no even work for Air Canada.

That's great. Other airlines have contracts/agreements that allow guys to go past 60. The majority of the ATPLs are welcome to work there or understand that in the compensation deferred seniority system at AC is structured on a normal retirement age of 60.

yycflyguy wrote:

Air Canada has its own medical department and TC qualified medical examiners who work for Air Canada.



True, but here's the loophole, there is no requirement to use AC's medical department. There is nothing stopping you from going to your own medical examiner instead.

True, but in my experience, the AC medical examiners work hard at making sure the pilot is fit for duty, the examiners I have had outside of the company have not been so accommodating. Delays and medical scrutiny every 6 months may affect GDIP and worker reliability.

It will become an issue of how Air Canada, not ACPA, wants the medical evaluations handled. I think the influence of respecting what your employer wants accomplished in the medical process may create some restrictions.

Getting back on topic.

The new, none ACPA related forum, has been a pleasure to read.

[accumulous]

At one of the last full indoctrination courses, the AC Chief Medical Examiner attended for a brief speech. On of the new pilots in attendance asked him what he thought of the age 60 issue. His quick and clear reply was that a pilot can be flying as long as they pass the medical and the standards are no different for anybody over 60. He was quite surprised that anybody would think differently, and he said that as far as he was concerned it was a non-issue.

[tailgunner]

And you know this HOW? It is a very convienient story that cannot be verified....Maybe I should call the RCMP to investigate....

[Max111]

Why don't you call the Air Canada doctor...If you need the name ....let me know.

[accumulous]

And you know this HOW? It is a very convienient story that cannot be verified....Maybe I should call the RCMP to investigate....

Apart from the spelling, that's a 'brilliant' comment. Call the MD's at AC. Every air carrier in the country including TC goes past 60. You go to the same TC certified MD, you do the medical, the same standards apply as applies to anybody over 40 - what's your problem.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

What's your problem.

COTU. Centre of the Universe. Facts are irrelevant, because we believe what we choose to believe, or as otherwise eloquently stated:

I am just a poor boy
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

-- Simon and Garfunkel: The Boxer

[PilotFlying]

One critical point that is difficult for any outsider to get their mind around with respect to your dispute is the question, what makes the Air Canada pilot group so different from every almost every other pilot group in Canada and the rest of the world who have not only accepted the removal of the age 60 restriction, but have adapted effectively to the change?

I don't think you are understanding the point I was trying to make in my first post: we are not against 60+ retirement. We dispute the currently proposed method of implementation that results in financial and quality of life penalties to the majority of our pilots.

What separates us from the other pilot groups you refer to is that, at present, our progression is based solely on retirements. Due to the age distribution and/or infancy of other seniority lists, or the nature of others' pay and progression structures, means that implementing 60+ retirement to their exisiting workforce did/does not result in an immediate, substantial penalty to their members.

Cheers,

Chris

[Mechanic787]

What separates us from the other pilot groups you refer to is that, at present, our progression is based solely on retirements. Due to the age distribution and/or infancy of other seniority lists, or the nature of others' pay and progression structures, means that implementing 60+ retirement to their exisiting workforce did/does not result in an immediate, substantial penalty to their members.

Good point. That puts a different perspective on it, and is helpful. However, I don't think that you have captured the essence of my previous suggestions. Namely, the implementation isn't likely something that you will have any control over, given that you are subjected to statutory rights, not bargaining rights. Nobody has the legal authority to negotiate a final settlement to this dispute.

So that means that you may very well have to accept the "implementation" and find alternative means to accomplish your objective of not allowing the change to cause the damage that you envisage and fear.

First, have you contemplated taking any action that would effectively mitigate or even totally offset the reduced number of retirements expected to result from removing the age restriction?

Second, do you have any means of putting some solid numbers on the expected adverse impact? How many individuals will stay, for how long? You need something more than just idle speculation in order to know with any degree of certainty what you are dealing with. That would likely require serious research, with candid, open discussions involving active pilots who are within the critical age bracket (age 55+, or later) so as to give the data credibility. Has your union undertaken any such work?

Third, have you considered alternative compensation arrangements to lessen the potential adverse impact of the change?

[tailgunner]

MAX111, I take it that you were also present when the AC doc made his statement? I guess you AND Accumulous sat next to each other during your PIT course. I am calling BS. This is all second hend info provided by a third party at best.

[Max111]

deleted