Why in the world???

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Cat Driver »

I for sure don't want to be working past 55 or 60! I will fly but on my accord and with no one hanging over my head.
Let me give you a perspective from my point in life.

I also had the opinion that I would never consider flying for a living past age 60.

However my career did not really become lucrative until I was 60 and I continued to fly until I retired at 70.

I was able to ask for and receive what I believed to be excellent pay for my flying services, mind you I had more to offer than a lot of retired airline pilots which allowed me to fly in parts of the flying industry that required special skills.

Have you thought about where you will find employment as a pilot when you retire at 60 and what special flying skills you will be able to offer besides flying an airliner?

Now is the time to plan for the after 60 portion of your career.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

Mig29 wrote:why are you avoiding my question above??

Details....what for?? To try and convince me that it's RIGHT what these few individuals are doing? I don't care about the details...but I do home it never goes through AC!

There....it's the only detail I care about here.
Just so we're clear, you're saying you prefer uninformed opinion based on ignorance rather than knowledge? Correct?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Understated »

flyinhigh wrote:Would it not have been better to take this topic to the ACPA pilots for a true vote by the membership to see how they feel and if they were in favour of it, than place it in the new contract and allow the folks that wanted to stay from as far back as X date return. The way it went with the lawsuit going to court than the gouvernment, there was no choice for the others. That way the change would be voted but not forced. It may have made things not so hostile.
Three issues here. First, you can’t expect to get anything resembling a true vote from ACPA. It will never happen because of unmitigated bias on the part of the Association. In the 2006 vote, the MEC prejudged the issue, then in the vote question asked the membership if it supported the MEC’s position, yes or no.

Second, a vote is meaningless anyway, even if 99% of the members support it or oppose it, because the issue here is not what pilots collectively want, it is what they are entitled to under the law. As I suggested in another thread, ”Democracy,” as Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, ”is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.” The lamb will lose the vote (and more), no matter what kind of democracy you have. That is why we have human rights legislation. To prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority on issues of fundamental social justice as determined not by the union, but by Parliament.

Third, despite so many here saying that it is contractual, that it was agreed to, that it is only fair, blah, blah, blah, the fact is that it is illegal. Human rights law trumps collective bargaining law. Even if the original provision was legal at one point in time, it is not legal now, for a whole series of reasons. So vote away. The court will strike it down, regardless, and all that is required to have the court arrive at this determination is for one single pilot to file a complaint.

Given that scenario, how long will it take before the majority finally agrees that the king has no clothes? Apparently, quite a while, if ACPA has anything to do with it. The current plan, evidently, is to go down fighting, and to take everyone else down as well, for one reason and one reason only—not because it is right or because it is fair or because there is any reasonable prospect of winning, but to save face at the major screw-up that it perpetrated by not getting in front of an issue that it could not win.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Understated on Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Mig29 »

you got all the numbers, you're right...I was way off....120K!!! I had Jazz pay numbers in my head, my bad.
So it's even more silly to say that 120K in pension is not good enough for you to retire on some boat down south....maybe?

I for one am glad that I'm not a minority in this issue and that there are many folks who believe that this is wrong!! you spin your numbers and facts all you want....but if this was a good idea, then everyone would benefit from this - not the other way around!

you gentlemen have a good night, I got bigger things to worry in life....some of you obviously have too much time on hands and have or have spent it much by working - that you forgot to live a little!
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

I don't care. Fly until you are 110 if you want AS LONG AS there is a much younger pilot there with you to show you how to turn on the computer, keep a close eye on what button you are touching and take over while you have your nap.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Understated »

Mig29 wrote:you got all the numbers, you're right...I was way off....120K!!! I had Jazz pay numbers in my head, my bad. So it's even more silly to say that 120K in pension is not good enough for you to retire on some boat down south....maybe?
It will be good enough, for me, if or when I get there. But things change. That is the absolute top number. It is based on two pension plans, the second of which is supported almost exclusively by the employer's "promise" to pay, as well as a number of other speculative assumptions, including the assumption that the employer will even exist in a few years.

More importantly, the whole focus on the money misses the point that I am making here. It's not about the money. It's not about pilots. It's not about fairness (to quote one of the other individuals here). It is about the fact that this is going to happen, and we, all of us, are going to have to live with it, regardless about how little we may agree with it. It is about having to deal with reality. It's about having to move forward, and accepting the things that we cannot change, no matter how much we may disagree with the perceived impact of the change. It's about trying to arrange our affairs to manage the change in a way that maximizes the benefit and minimizes the adverse consequences, especially for the most vulnerable. That is the task. And as I see it, denial is not a solution.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinhigh
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: my couch

Re: Why in the world???

Post by flyinhigh »

Mig, I maybe the tone in which I am reading your posts but try to lose the hostilities.

I am with you on the issue here, I don't agree with it on a contractual basis, however the reason i started this was to find out why the guys wanna stay and to get well informed info before really jumping to conclusions without having most if not all the Facts. Its something new I am trying for this year.

Also the 60K you posted with the JAZZ numbers is also off with our new contract. It has gone WAY up now.

Understated, thanks for the posts and not droping to name calling.

Carry on
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

Mig29 wrote:you got all the numbers, you're right...I was way off....120K!!! I had Jazz pay numbers in my head, my bad. So it's even more silly to say that 120K in pension is not good enough for you to retire on some boat down south....maybe?
Once again you're going off half-cocked with insufficient information. That figure is the maximum with 35 years service in. For many years now the average age of new hire pilots has been 35 years old, which if YOU do the math means only 25 years of service. Further math means much much less than 120K. There are plenty of pilots who won't even get that much.
LEAFS SUCK wrote:I don't care. Fly until you are 110 if you want AS LONG AS there is a much younger pilot there with you to show you how to turn on the computer, keep a close eye on what button you are touching and take over while you have your nap.
Awfully presumptuous of you to think the young guy is going to be better than the old one. That hasn't generally been my experience so far, and I'll wager I've been around longer than you have. You should probably lose the attitude and worry about your own skills.
---------- ADS -----------
 
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by accumulous »

And as I see it, denial is not a solution.
There’s no mistaking the facts here. We’re trying to bail out the Titanic with a shot glass.

This thing hit a fairly large iceberg over a year ago and has been steadily taking on water. There has been an effort to patch the gaping hole with vague and inaccurate parchment, and that’s about all.

It’s going under. When you put a big hole in the bottom of a boat, and if the boat is sitting in water, and if the water is deeper than the height of the boat, the boat will sink due to gravity.

The Federal Court or the Federal Government, depending on who arrives at the scene of the sinking first, is about to take complete control of the helm and steer what’s left of the hulking thing into their own iceberg, the end of mandatory retirement for the entire federally regulated sector. They’ll just put the entire crew out of its misery.

Yet so far there has not been any statement at all in any of the membership newsletters, unless we missed one, with regard to the potential magnitude of the liability that the membership is under. For some reason nobody is being shown the readout on the depth sounder.

By anybody’s standard from what has gone before, we have to be looking, potentially, at 50 percent of 20 million on the low end.

The big question – is there a legal obligation to advise the membership of the potential liability and to give them realistic odds of being on the hook for it. Is there anything in the constitution that mandates that kind of disclosure?

As the next 150 complainants move through the procedural hoops to the inevitable result, let’s assume that the Federally ordered end to mandatory retirement comes in the Fall at the hands of Parliament. In the meantime, for all pilots wishing to continue their employment past 60 in order to maximize their years of service for pension purposes, (and data shows about 2900 pilots require that), the end result, if current events are any indicator, will be that the membership will ultimately be paying for half of all the back wages of all the complainants and all of the pilots who file a formal complaint from when this all started several years ago, right up until the procedural end.

The iceberg was in clear view well over a year ago – at 20 knots, the iceberg was on the radar at a range of over 175,000 miles, which is well off the charts. That’s one big hummer of an iceberg.

Unless it’s buried in an obscure folder somewhere, the only note, so far, seems to have said, steady as she goes, no sweat, the damage is minor, this isn’t really happening, all of you down in steerage, please remain seated, the water will not rise above your chins, tilt your heads back a little and just breathe normally, anyway there are only enough lifeboats for the guys who voted.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

Rockie wrote:
Mig29 wrote:you got all the numbers, you're right...I was way off....120K!!! I had Jazz pay numbers in my head, my bad. So it's even more silly to say that 120K in pension is not good enough for you to retire on some boat down south....maybe?
Once again you're going off half-cocked with insufficient information. That figure is the maximum with 35 years service in. For many years now the average age of new hire pilots has been 35 years old, which if YOU do the math means only 25 years of service. Further math means much much less than 120K. There are plenty of pilots who won't even get that much.
LEAFS SUCK wrote:I don't care. Fly until you are 110 if you want AS LONG AS there is a much younger pilot there with you to show you how to turn on the computer, keep a close eye on what button you are touching and take over while you have your nap.
Awfully presumptuous of you to think the young guy is going to be better than the old one. That hasn't generally been my experience so far, and I'll wager I've been around longer than you have. You should probably lose the attitude and worry about your own skills.
The fishing is real good today even if they are just suckers! At least some of us had a laugh reading your reply or the fact you actually replied! Now don't be angry just use your head a little before replying to everything you read on the internet. :goodman:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

LEAFS SUCK wrote:I don't care. Fly until you are 110 if you want AS LONG AS there is a much younger pilot there with you to show you how to turn on the computer, keep a close eye on what button you are touching and take over while you have your nap.
From Wikipedia:

"Ageism, also called age discrimination is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice and discrimination. This may be casual or systematic. The term was coined in 1968 by Robert Neil Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, and patterned on sexism and racism. Butler defined ageism as a combination of three connected elements. Among them were prejudicial attitudes towards older people, old age, and the aging process; discriminatory practices against older people; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about older people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

:roll: Thanx Grandpa. Now stop biting.
---------- ADS -----------
 
onspeed
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:48 pm
Location: yyz

Re: Why in the world???

Post by onspeed »

So if there are 150 pilots with complaints at the Human Rights Tribunal, what is that going to mean if they all are allowed to come back and fly? I'm assuming they will be flying the bigger machines and that there will be a lot of internal displacement, how many people do you see being laid off as a result?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

LEAFS SUCK wrote::roll: Thanx Grandpa. Now stop biting.
Who's really doing the biting here? Were you dragged into this conversation or just couldn't resist?
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

Hey Rockie, Apollo Creed just called and said he is looking for you. You better get to bed now so you are not tired and cranky tomorrow k. Or maybe you are always this tired and cranky. We had a good laugh while it lasted but it's over now. REALLY. Good night sport. :goodman:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

LEAFS SUCK wrote:Thanx Grandpa. Now stop biting.
Whatever you say, Juvenile.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:
LEAFS SUCK wrote:Thanx Grandpa. Now stop biting.
Whatever you say, Juvenile.
Hey Johnny are we flying together next week? If so I might let you fly a leg, no promises though. I tell you what if you are real good I will let you put the gear down. Now go to bed little guy no one likes a tired pilot. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

LEAFS SUCK wrote:Hey Johnny are we flying together next week? If so I might let you fly a leg, no promises though.
Not unless you are my Captain. Appearances are deceiving, sometimes. I'll bet that I joined the mother ship quite a while after you did. Call me a young heretic, but I just don't buy the B.S. that most of my supposed peers, including you, are slinging. Tell you what. You let me put the gear down and I'll introduce you to a couple of nice babes, both under 25. Call them my cousins.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LEAFS SUCK
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LEAFS SUCK »

Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:
LEAFS SUCK wrote:Hey Johnny are we flying together next week? If so I might let you fly a leg, no promises though.
Not unless you are my Captain. Appearances are deceiving, sometimes. I'll bet that I joined the mother ship quite a while after you did. Call me a young heretic, but I just don't buy the B.S. that most of my supposed peers, including you, are slinging. Tell you what. You let me put the gear down and I'll introduce you to a couple of nice babes, both under 25. Call them my cousins.
OK you win. :prayer: Have a great night!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

LEAFS SUCK wrote:
Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:
LEAFS SUCK wrote:Thanx Grandpa. Now stop biting.
Whatever you say, Juvenile.
Hey Johnny are we flying together next week? If so I might let you fly a leg, no promises though. I tell you what if you are real good I will let you put the gear down. Now go to bed little guy no one likes a tired pilot. :lol:
This is a big issue leaf, that incorrectly handled as it has been so far will have serious consequences for every Air Canada pilot. If you are one you would do yourself a service by sitting up straight and paying attention. For now though your admitted purpose is to stir the pot and go fishing. Thank you for saying that. Your posts can now safely be dismissed as juvenile mischief making and irrelevant to the discussion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LeadingEdge
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by LeadingEdge »

Rockie wrote:Won't you feel silly when it finally dawns on you that you can earn even more money than before if you choose, your pension will be better if you choose, and you can retire on the very same airplane in exactly the same seniority position if you choose?

Of course you could choose not to, but then you can't very well blame anyone else for that can you?
Did you actually think about the topic before you posted???

Why is it that every "Fly till you die" proponent automatically assume that everyone wants to fly until they die?? The FACT is that most don't, but they will be forced to, due to the greed of a small MINORITY of Pilots.

To answer your question, I don't want to fly past 60, and I don't want to have to, in order to max my pension. This impacts some people careers severely, And since your a rookie, I hope that you enjoy the PG or the street for the additional 5 years - because thats what its going to be... This will slam the door shut at AC for a long time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

LeadingEdge wrote:To answer your question, I don't want to fly past 60, and I don't want to have to, in order to max my pension. This impacts some people careers severely,
Did somebody tell you that or did you come to this conclusion yourself? On what information are you basing this conclusion on? I'm asking this because your use of the present tense on the impact of this is curious since nothing has happened yet.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Why in the world???

Post by BTD »

LeadingEdge wrote:This impacts some people careers severely, And since your a rookie, I hope that you enjoy the PG or the street for the additional 5 years - because thats what its going to be... This will slam the door shut at AC for a long time.
I don't get into these debates, but this statement is just ridiculous. To assume that Rockie is a new hire at AC, when he has been a member of this board for 5 years and has numerous posts where you can estimate his seniority at AC, means you make this statement without knowing anything about him (nor do I for that matter).

It highlights your response as being an emotionally charged post and therefore it can be easily discarded.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Localizer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: CYYZ

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Localizer »

I see a bunch of rich people whining that they still don't have enough ... Care to correct me?

:evil:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why in the world???

Post by Rockie »

You don't see Canada changing attitudes on mandatory retirement?
You don't see the CHRT and Federal Court rulings on mandatory retirement?
You don't see provincial, territorial and now federal governments changing the laws on mandatory retirement?

Perhaps you should open your eyes a little wider.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”