Federal Court Judicial Review Hearing Completed

[Understated]

BTW, Understated, "fairy tails?" What does the anatomy of fairies have to do with this discourse?

Nothing, save for the fact that it is but one of a litany of malapropisms taken directly from the posts of one individual here.

[Understated]

Greed is greed, call it what you like.

In case you haven't noticed, this issue is one that is no longer just about Air Canada pilots. With the coming legislation it will affect 800,000 workers and make the federal laws consistent with the laws of every single province and their millions of workers who have no mandatory retirement. Greed? Can't we move on?

I am yet to meet some one too female to fly, too black to fly, too Jewish to fly.
I can sure as hell point out some that are too old to fly....

Valid argument, wrong venue. You are wasting your time, now, arguing with pilots, with ACPA, or with Air Canada. The whole matter has been taken out of their hands, and their opinion doesn't count for squat any more.

You really should be over at the building on Sparks Street lobbying Transport Canada, the regulator that licences these incompetents. After you have been successful there, head up a couple of blocks to Parliament. They simply must be informed of the impending aviation disaster that they are about to create.

[the original tony]

Transport Canada?? One of the few bodies who can tell you that you're operating
your aircraft incorrectly, never having flown one. I'll get on it just for you.
Want to help jobless rates, unemployment numbers? Keep seniors around longer, makes sense. The smallest contributors to the economy working longer. Wow, you guys have some
kind of analytical background? Disaster isn't the word for it, let me direct you to a good school, oops, there aren't any openings in your field though, never mind.
I love it,

[ole man fliver]

This is my point exactly, SOME jobs going past 60, no big deal.
Allowing this farce to continue and affect even the publics safety is a joke.
As a cashier, attendant or some very low risk job, no big deal, at the very least you falling ill isn't going to cause harm to others, You can get help IMEDIATELY.
Flying across the pole and you take a stroke , endangering my family, with zero medical attention available and if it is, hours away, I will have my very own law suit.
Now let the stat md calls go through, new sim scenarios should include pilot incapacitations and nothing else.

Hi Tony... check out this link

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/qatar ... -air-59594

How close in age are you with this skipper?

Cheers.....and good health to you during the holiday season

[Brick Head]

BTW, Understated, "fairy tails?" What does the anatomy of fairies have to do with this discourse?

Nothing, save for the fact that it is but one of a litany of malapropisms taken directly from the posts of one individual here.

I no my opinion on the issue has me plummeting to the top of the list of those you highly regard as idiotic. However the action of busting my chops over the inability to catch spell cheque error's, could be scene as a translucent attempt to raise my credibility to knew lows.

It amazes me just how much anger is generated just because someone, or in this case an association, seeks to implement a change, if and when it happens, in an equitable fashion.

Yes I realize it doesn't apply to everyone. Probably just the vocal minority. I hope so anyway.

Well back under my rock.

[Understated]

I no my opinion on the issue has me plummeting to the top of the list of those you highly regard as idiotic. However the action of busting my chops over the inability to catch spell cheque error's, could be scene as a translucent attempt to raise my credibility to knew lows.

Not the case at all. It is simply a very small poke of humour at a few silly mistakes. I hope that I never lose the ability to laugh at myself, especially in regard to some of the inane things that I have done (and may still be doing).

Regarding my opinion of you, or perhaps "our" opinion of you? Absolutely on the contrary. Your posts here have always been thorough, firmly grounded, and totally above board. You have garnered an outstanding respect here, in my view, and I don't see anyone viewing you in the least as idiotic.

It is the argument, not the person, that I was challenging in my more recent posts. And I do still challenge that argument. As I see it, there is no defence under the statute to the position that you have put forward re post-age 60 contract modifications, but I am still open to be persuaded that there is.

[Understated]

Want to help jobless rates, unemployment numbers? Keep seniors around longer, makes sense. The smallest contributors to the economy working longer. Wow, you guys have some
kind of analytical background?

We could move this thread off into the field of economics. If we did, your unfounded position and biases would not hold up well, with the wealth of data and studies available not just from within Canada, but from august economic institutions such as the OECD that has done extremely detailed research with respect to aging and the economies of all advanced countries, such as the following:

http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdf ... 05161E.PDF

There is a very valid reason that mandatory retirement is being or has been repealed, and it has as much to do with the positive economics of doing so as its does with human rights imperatives.

[mbav8r]

It doesn't have to be age based, you can base the contract on years of service. Get to 25 years, have years 20-25 as the higest paid, so your reach your pension cap, then down it goes. Simple version, but you get the jist.

[accumulous]

It doesn't have to be age based, you can base the contract on years of service. Get to 25 years, have years 20-25 as the higest paid, so your reach your pension cap, then down it goes. Simple version, but you get the jist.

Don't forget, you would have to keep the Position Group, the EMJ, and the Narrow Body subgroups in their current stunted pigeonholed contract positions.

According to the Geneva Convention, you can only Slam your own people 3 times. The Pay Group, the EMJ group, and the Narrow Body group have already absorbed the max allowable Slammings quota.

In order to Slam the Senior Pilots you would have to De-Slam one of the other 3 groups.

De-Slamming of one of the other 3 groups would redistribute the mythical Collective Pie, causing the cataclysm that was already predicted by not Slamming the Senior Pilots.

If you're in the middle of the seniority list, you can't have it both ways. You can't Slam the Juniors, and Slam the Seniors at the same time.

[Understated]

The first incident involving an age 60+ pilot will soon bring the BFOR back into the forefront, as with the firefighters decision. Human rights notwithstanding, public safety and public opinion will demand it.

As our lawyers pointed out in the recent Federal Court JR hearing, age 60 is not a bona fide occupational requirement for airline pilots for the simple reason that it is not an occupational requirement at all, save now for the extremely limited scope of the ICAO crew-matching rules.

Otherwise stated, age 60 is an Air Canada requirement, not an occupational requirement, so it can never meet the requirements of being bona fide occupational requirement. No airline in Canada, except Air Canada, uses it, and the selection of the arbitrary age of 60 by Air Canada as the arbitrary age to terminate pilots' employment has nothing at all to do with the underlying professional requirements of the occupation itself.

Most importantly, it cannot be a BFOR because Transport Canada, the regulatory authority that dictates what the standards are, has determined that the standards for airline pilot licensing can be best assessed by recurrent individual testing on both medical and professional grounds, which means that an arbitrary age, be it age 60, 65 or whatever, will never be used as a basis for establishing a BFOR for airline pilots in Canada.

[accumulous]

Tony wrote:

The rest of you quite frankly can die or whatever works.

If you’re going to Discriminate you can’t be issuing death threats. That crosses the line into a different category. It was used a lot under ‘mergers’. With Discrimination you have to stick to the big 6 or you get in trouble real fast.

Sarcasm, Hyperbole, Stereotyping, Innuendo, Sweeping Generalizations, and Irony.

There used to be a 7th, Ostracism, but that was dropped because it conflicted with the two-communication incapacitation rule on aircraft. It can however still be used on the street.

Please don’t tell us if you plan to use it.

[the original tony]

Threats!!!! HAHAHA
Now that's funny, it's merely a suggestion, a recommendation as it were. Similar to the tribunal, call it wishful thinking.
I wouldn't threaten anyone as they have done to my career and so many others.
Not I, not greedy or bored enough to threaten people,
Just looking through the job ads.

[accumulous]

call it wishful thinking

Okay now that's just downright scary. That comes under 'Voodoo'.

[Thirteentennorth]

The first incident involving an age 60+ pilot will soon bring the BFOR back into the forefront, as with the firefighters decision. Human rights notwithstanding, public safety and public opinion will demand it.

As our lawyers pointed out in the recent Federal Court JR hearing, age 60 is not a bona fide occupational requirement for airline pilots for the simple reason that it is not an occupational requirement at all, save now for the extremely limited scope of the ICAO crew-matching rules.

Otherwise stated, age 60 is an Air Canada requirement, not an occupational requirement, so it can never meet the requirements of being bona fide occupational requirement. No airline in Canada, except Air Canada, uses it, and the selection of the arbitrary age of 60 by Air Canada as the arbitrary age to terminate pilots' employment has nothing at all to do with the underlying professional requirements of the occupation itself.

Most importantly, it cannot be a BFOR because Transport Canada, the regulatory authority that dictates what the standards are, has determined that the standards for airline pilot licensing can be best assessed by recurrent individual testing on both medical and professional grounds, which means that an arbitrary age, be it age 60, 65 or whatever, will never be used as a basis for establishing a BFOR for airline pilots in Canada.

Understated, you're quite correct theoretically, BUT IF, God forbid, there was an incident/accident involving an age 60/65+ pilot, this entire process IS going to be dragged into the public forum, every aspect of the process is going to be re-visited and the actions of the FP60 group, V&K, the CHRT and even ACPA and AC, is going to be subjected to intense public scrutiny. IF there were to be a fatal accident, you can be very sure that every post of yours and mine, and Ray's on this forum, and others, will be brought into the public focus. Litigation lawyers will have their way, and will pick apart every word that has been spoken and written on this subject.

I trust and hope that nothing ever occurs, but my point is that IF IT DOES, be prepared for an upsurge of public outrage, mostly directed at the FP60 group, and the CHRT. Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences!

[vic777]

Understated, you're quite correct theoretically, BUT IF, God forbid, there was an incident/accident involving an age 60/65+ pilot, this entire process IS going to be dragged into the public forum, every aspect of the process is going to be re-visited and the actions of the FP60 group, V&K, the CHRT and even ACPA and AC, is going to be subjected to intense public scrutiny. IF there were to be a fatal accident, you can be very sure that every post of yours and mine, and Ray's on this forum, and others, will be brought into the public focus. Litigation lawyers will have their way, and will pick apart every word that has been spoken and written on this subject.

As well it should, that's all fair ball ... if they can prove the accident/incident was due to being over Sixty, that would be nice to know, "Bring it on". Was the Air France fiasco in Toronto due to the fact that the Pilots were "under Sixty"? Competency must be determined thru Simulators and Medical tests. If you pass you're competent until the next test, if you fail you're grounded until you get competent.

[Thirteentennorth]

As well it should, that's all fair ball ... if they can prove the accident/incident was due to being over Sixty, that would be nice to know, "Bring it on". Was the Air France fiasco in Toronto due to the fact that the Pilots were "under Sixty"? Competency must be determined thru Simulators and Medical tests. If you pass you're competent until the next test, if you fail you're grounded until you get competent.

Vic, in principle you are spot on, but the court of public opinion has, as you well know, little or nothing to do with [intangible] "proof." Perception is reality.

[Raymond Hall]

After all, it is a matter of public record that at least one of the candidates has demonstrated his willingness to resort to litigation, first to get hired, then to regain his employment after his collective-agreement-mandated retirement. What's to stop them from bringing an action against an AC check pilot in the event of a simulator failure?

Iain: For the record, GV did not resort to litigation to get hired. I have posted on my office wall a copy of the letter that he received from the pilot who hired me, probably the same pilot who hired you, telling him on October 31, 1974 (he was 31 at the time) that he was too old to be hired by Air Canada and that he should consider other options.

He was put on course some 12 years later, after Carson and others took Air Canada through litigation to get hired. GV simply phoned Air Canada after the others were eventually hired, and Air Canada gave him a course date.

Yes, he did file the original complaint. Because they were not treating him in a non-discriminatory manner. That is what his complaint sought. Non-discriminatory treatment by the employer. That is what he expected then, and that is what he expects now. That is what all of us expect. And that applies to flight training as well. No discriminatory treatment, unfavourable or favourable.

[Thirteentennorth]

Thanks for the correction, and the chronology, Ray. I was obviously misinformed as to the original course of events surrounding GV's hiring. I have withdrawn the offending statement from my answer to Vic777 and apologize for any embarrassment caused.

And yes, I agree with you that the goal is non-discriminatory treatment. I was simply wondering if, in view of the train of recent events, if expectations and reality will intersect. It is to be hoped that they will.

Happy Christmas to you and yours.

IE.

[vic777]

As far as competency goes, do you really think that, after all that has transpired, should either V or K pooch their 1A rides, there would not be an outcry about AC checkies trying to "get them."

I doubt that either V or K with each having close to Twenty years or more in the AC culture will "pooch" their rides. .... as far as

[If I was AC's Director of Training, I would be making very sure that a TC Inspector conducted every one of their simulator PPC's for the remainder of their careers].

I know you are joking .... this very act would warrant a lawsuit. ... ACPA would be all over AC.

[Raymond Hall]

I agree with you that the goal is non-discriminatory treatment. I was simply wondering if, in view of the train of recent events, if expectations and reality will intersect.

There are some positive signs that they will. For one, both GV and NK report that they have encountered nothing but positive relations and professional rapport with the AC personnel at all levels that they have been dealing with since they recommenced employment. They were also greeted cordially and congenially by senior members of the ACPA MEC.

There are a number of reasons for the positive results, I believe, the most logical of which, aside from the obvious fact that the instructors and managers are themselves professionals, is the growing realization by almost everyone involved that there will be no going back to the previous regime, especially given the impending legislative changes. Also, it is in everyone's best interest to make this new regime effective and transparent.

The legal issues will obviously continue to give rise to a great deal of emotion, especially after the two major outstanding decisions are rendered, namely the Thwaites Tribunal decision and the Federal Court judicial review decision, because each of those have such a significant potential to permanently change the landscape. But any conflicts arising from these decisions should occur outside of the workplace.

[mbav8r]

Raymond, I'm curious, so I'll ask you as a representitive of the fly past group. How will you deal with a change to the collective agreement regarding a change in pay. By this I mean, if the pay was changed to a status pay system for example, and you now find yourself making less money, annually, than you were before you were forced out. How will that be handled?
I think it a real possibility, maybe not status pay, but how the collective pay is divided will likely change.

[vic777]

I think it a real possibility, maybe not status pay, but how the collective pay is divided will likely change.

If the "new" division of the "collective" pay is legal, I say, "Bring it on". We still get to bid our positions based on seniority don't we? ACPA has a nice record for making bad deals with AC. It would have been nice if ACPA had figured out how to "collectively" profit from the inevitable "Fly Past Sixty". There were so many ways this could have been a win win. Now AC wins, and ACPA? Well ACPA is ACPA.

[Rockie]

Raymond, I'm curious, so I'll ask you as a representitive of the fly past group. How will you deal with a change to the collective agreement regarding a change in pay. By this I mean, if the pay was changed to a status pay system for example, and you now find yourself making less money, annually, than you were before you were forced out. How will that be handled?
I think it a real possibility, maybe not status pay, but how the collective pay is divided will likely change.

If the membership decides a change is required in our compensation scheme as a result of the elimination of mandatory retirement then that is what they will insist on and make happen. The impact on all members will not be as career destroying or costly as ACPA's absurd financial impact study would have us believe, but some large or small adjustment may be called for. It is essential however that any decision made along those lines be taken only after a comprehensive, competent, accurate and impartial analysis of the pros and cons of any contemplated action, and the results of said analysis effectively and impartially communicated to the membership so they can make an informed decision. This shouldn't need to be said, but it must also not attempt to perpetuate age discrimination through other means.

Unfortunately we will not get what we need to make an informed decision from ACPA as this entire debacle has proven. Not without completely new leadership capable of a much broader perspective, vision and sense of their responsibilities than they have shown to date.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond, I'm curious, so I'll ask you as a representitive of the fly past group. How will you deal with a change to the collective agreement regarding a change in pay. By this I mean, if the pay was changed to a status pay system for example, and you now find yourself making less money, annually, than you were before you were forced out. How will that be handled?

I cannot speak for the group on that issue because I don't have any knowledge of how the various members of the group would respond to the question, were it posed. I can offer my personal comments.

Almost every airline pilot group in the world has had to deal with this issue, and has done so effectively, without the results that we see in ACPA's handling of the age-60 issue so far. Isn't that the essence of proper collective bargaining and the duty of fair representation? That we work within the constraints of the law, allow and encourage honest input from all the interest groups, majority and minority, and then arrive a result that is balanced and effective for everyone.

Aside from all the accusations that have been levelled at me here, consider these two facts.

First, I strongly suggested to ACPA and to anyone else who would listen in 2006 and again repeatedly ever since that time that the legal constraints of the mandatory retirement exemption were beyond the scope of the Association to overcome, and that the best way, strategically to deal with those constraints was to find workable alternatives within the constraints to alleviate the most adverse consequences to those most vulnerable, so that we could profit from receiving a share of the benefits that the employer would reap from the changes in the age limit as a result of reduced training costs and reduced pension liability.

Second, not only did ACPA not listen to my prophetic correct legal and strategic prognosis, it chose instead to do everything possible to thwart or at least delay the changes. When that didn’t silence and stanch the growing problem and reality, it responded by closing off debate, censoring and censuring its own members, and openly refusing to fairly represent the large component of its own membership that was on the ultimately correct legal side of the issue. It also took the extreme step of actually supporting the employer’s litigation seeking to uphold the termination of employment of its own members, members to which it owed a statutory duty to fairly represent.

The result of the second action is a huge potential liability, at least six ongoing legal proceedings resulting from its actions and the prospect of having to adjust ex post facto to the changes that it is now being forced against its will to adopt. The adverse implications to its internal operations and to the cohesiveness of its membership are yet to be truly experienced or measured, including the impact of the potential financial consequences that could impose a substantial additional burden on the members. Remember, save for the judicial review of the Section 1 Charter issue in the 2009 Tribunal decision, ACPA did not take any legal action to avert being held financially liable for 50% of the wage damages awarded by the Tribunal to the two complainants reinstated, and they are only the first two of approximately 150 pilots in the damage queue.

Yes, I am willing to adjust my expectations, including my wage and working condition expectations, provided that the changes are legal and fairly determined.

[accumulous]

I think it a real possibility, maybe not status pay, but how the collective pay is divided will likely change.

If factions within ACPA are going to persist with their ‘Collective Pie’ quasi-theory, they really need to leave it in the oven a while longer because at this juncture when you cut into it, there’s just a runny mess.

And the ‘Collective Pie’ has a few lumps in it.

Cutting the pay and benefits of the Senior pilots, which ultimately includes everyone who will become a Senior pilot (unless the recipe includes tossing the concoction out just before the cooks themselves arrive on the Senior scene?), obviously only adds one more disadvantaged group to the bake shop.

The PayGroup, the EMJ scale and the Narrow Body hit, all redistributed the Collective Pie in the cook’s favor, if the cook is not part of those groups.

For certain, the cook is not part of the Senior pilot group, so the cook is standing on the safe side of the bridge for that one.

Let’s hammer out the existing lumps in the pie. Get rid of the first three groups initially, and redistribute the ‘Collective Pie’ to the hundreds and hundreds of pilots in those quadrants.

Possible? Likely not. By definition, that would cause the caving in of the cake that was predicted by not frying the Senior pilots.

How would that taste?

ACPA's cookbook is not a Jamie Oliver production. It's the typical tin box full of clippings held together with a paper clip.

If a new recipe is being written by anybody other than Einstein, it should be an entertaining read.