CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[duranium]

To all a little history lesson in how are legal system works.

Ray you should know this one.

It is the same I think, we are making law? Do you respect the system? Does the age 60 coalition respect the common law system we have? If you do then please stop with the stupid comments. If you or any of the others have anything of value to add then please post. But really if not then just let things run the course. If you have any valuable suggestions let us know. Do you support the college of pilots? Would you be supportive of a new pay scale? How about pay grouping? Would you want you move to a DC plan? If you think for a second that your DB plan is protected then read the paper and look at it what i happening to the steel workers. I do work at AC and would like to protect your plan as well as mine but at the same time you might want to step back and realize we are on the same side, be careful what you wish for, and please don't shoot yourself in the foot,:as mine is on the other side.

Cheers,

James

As I read it here and elsewhere, you are not making law, Vilven and Kelly are. In all probability, you are about to suffer those consequences, in a very big and costly manner.


You do not only have the common law system to contend with, you also have the Napoleonic law code to contend with in Canada

From this observer's perspective, here is a very valuable suggestion. Stop trowing good money away but then, it's your money

Here's an other stupid comment for you to consider. This will be decided in Canada, by canadian judges and under the canadian legal system with no input from the House of Lords or any direct British input. So, who cares and more so, what weight will your recitations about something long past have on the thought process our canadian judges will use to adjucate this fiasco ?

[Raymond Hall]

To all a little history lesson in how are legal system works. Ray you should know this one. It is the same I think, we are making law? Do you respect the system? Does the age 60 coalition respect the common law system we have? If you do then please stop with the stupid comments.

Well, James, I had suspected that many of my pilot peers were sceptical of my legal skills and competence, but your comment takes that lack of respect to a whole new level.

Stupid comments? Such as suggesting that Vilven and Kelly should be reinstated? Such as suggesting that ACPA is in breach of its duty under Section 37 of the Canada Labour Code, for having allegedly failed to fairly represent the interests of a large minority of its membership? Such as suggesting that age discrimination in Canada is now illegal? Such as suggesting that ACPA is severely exposed financially to the damages resulting from its actions in supporting the employer's litigation to uphold the termination of employment of its own members? Such as suggesting that because Parliament is about to repeal the mandatory retirement exemption, that ACPA will have to change course, whether it agrees with the impending changes or not?

I won't bore you with any more stupid comments, then, about the merits of the above "stupid" comments. I will just retire from the discussion and wait for the Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Canada Industrial Relations Board and Parliament to speak. We likely won't have to wait very much longer.

Meanwhile, you can continue citing first year law school common law tort cases to support your argument in statutory law disputes. I won't interfere with any more "stupid" comments suggesting that you and other wannabe lawyers are about to have your docket refreshed.

I'll look forward to seeing you in flight planning, after my employment is reinstated. After all, you are one of the base councillors and you will represent my interests, right?

[Martin Tamme]

I'll look forward to seeing you in flight planning, after my employment is reinstated.

Now you have me confused. Ray, I thought you were going into politics. MP for Winnipeg-South?



Hypothetical questions:

If the Budget doesn't pass and an election is called this Spring...

a) What happens to the Private Member's Bill?
b) If you are elected, can you still act as Council for the FP60 Coalition?

[Raymond Hall]

I thought you were going into politics. MP for Winnipeg-South?
Hypothetical questions: If the Budget doesn't pass and an election is called this Spring...
a) What happens to the Private Member's Bill?
b) If you are elected, can you still act as Council for the FP60 Coalition?

Good questions, Martin.

The Budget speech is not expected until early March at the earliest, according to the latest news reports (I do not have any better information than anyone else on this subject). If the Bill has not yet passed third reading in the House of Commons before the current Parliament session is ended (such as with an election call), the Bill will die on the Order Paper, as the 1995 equivalent Bill did.

The Bill is currently before the Human Resources Committee for amendment. There is no telling if it will get out of that Committee before March, as the Committee has not yet met to discuss its agenda for the next month (Parliament resumes only today).

I was nominated in July, 2009 in the riding of Winnipeg South Centre (formerly Lloyd Axworthy's riding, now held by his successor, Ms. Anita Neville). If there is an election this Spring, I will extricate myself from all of the Fly Past 60 work, litigation and organization, to devote myself exclusively to the election. If elected, I will not be further involved in any of the litigation or organization work, save for having another legal counsel look after my personal CHRT complaint on my behalf. Everything else will be handed off to other counsel, permanently, due to the inherent conflict of interest that would result with my new employment.

If there is an election and I am not successful, I will return from the leave of absence to readdress these matters as soon as the election is over.

If there is no election this Spring, there will likely not be one until next year, as there will be five provincial elections this fall, including Ontario and Manitoba. If there is no election this Spring, I plan to return to flying for the next year, or until there is an election.

Of course, that plan depends on the outcome of the current litigation, and on the prospect of either being able to negotiate a settlement for all the 150 litigants, or of actually litigating the reinstatement of as many of those who still plan to return to work, should we be successful in any of the three current legal proceedings, all of whose decisions are expected within the next several weeks.

[777longhaul]

Raymond

Thanks for taking the time, and effort to publish your repy(s). Sad, how this issue has gone so far off the rails, in time, money, and emotions. AC, has played acpa very well in this one. When the music stops, over the next few months, it will be very interesting to see who has a chair to sit in.

[vic777]

Do you really beleive that an employer such as Air Canada, will ever accept handing out a starting salary anywhere near $ 85000 to an unknown entity,

I believe that if Pilots refuse to fly for less than $85,000, then AC will pay them $85,000. Yes I really believe it. I believe Pilots are worth $85,000 ... from the get-go. And if Pilots refuse to DH without full Pay ... AC will pay full rate for DH. And don't give me any zero cost BS. ACPA should tell AC that Pilots cost money ... big money! And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

[fish4life]

Do you really beleive that an employer such as Air Canada, will ever accept handing out a starting salary anywhere near $ 85000 to an unknown entity,

I believe that if Pilots refuse to fly for less than $85,000, then AC will pay them $85,000. Yes I really believe it. I believe Pilots are worth $85,000 ... from the get-go. And if Pilots refuse to DH without full Pay ... AC will pay full rate for DH. And don't give me any zero cost BS. ACPA should tell AC that Pilots cost money ... big money! And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

agreeing with you there vic, duranium these so called "unknown entities" aren't really so unknown AC isn't hiring 200hr wonders that are fresh out of flight school, the pilots that AC hires have already proven themselves and are professional pilots with thousands of hours of experience in so called "structured operations". By that token you mean to tell me that an engineer that has 6 years of experience with one company and wants to move up to a bigger company will start at the starting salary of a first year engineer? NO they will get paid based on experience the same thing should happen in aviation. I know some guys that have taken over a 50% pay cut to go to AC.

[Martin Tamme]

And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

I hate to point out the obvious; however, if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

[duranium]

Do you really beleive that an employer such as Air Canada, will ever accept handing out a starting salary anywhere near $ 85000 to an unknown entity,

I believe that if Pilots refuse to fly for less than $85,000, then AC will pay them $85,000. Yes I really believe it. I believe Pilots are worth $85,000 ... from the get-go. And if Pilots refuse to DH without full Pay ... AC will pay full rate for DH. And don't give me any zero cost BS. ACPA should tell AC that Pilots cost money ... big money! And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

First, a disclamer. The following is based on what I read here and elsewhere.

Pilots are worth way more than $85000 for a multitude of reasons, but you try making that germinate between the ears of the bean counters running the show, fat chance

Renumeration is mostly, these days, based on what the market will bear or, in other words, what the employer can get away with. And in the case of pilots, they are commodities and considered as such by the aforementionned bean counters and there are no shortages of pilot applicants at your company, if what I read on this forum is of any value. So, yes you can refuse to fly for less than a given amount of total renumeration but, one word of caution, there is a latent stampede waiting on the sidelines to fill the void left by those with an inflated self worth. That is nor to say one should work '' for pennies '' but, a word to the wise, look around you before drawing that line in the sand.

Your last question about the windfall gains reaped by AC because of the abolition of mandatory retirement should be addressed to one of your elected representatives at ACPA as they are, for sure, in a position to give you a very accurate and precise answer but, once again, based from what was stated here, don't hold your breath waiting because you have a better chance of suffering from rigor mortis before any honest answer is provided.


Note: BS and the accompanying putrid hot air are for those likely flying hot air balloons, very not up my alley

[duranium]

agreeing with you there vic, duranium these so called "unknown entities" aren't really so unknown AC isn't hiring 200hr wonders that are fresh out of flight school, the pilots that AC hires have already proven themselves and are professional pilots with thousands of hours of experience in so called "structured operations". By that token you mean to tell me that an engineer that has 6 years of experience with one company and wants to move up to a bigger company will start at the starting salary of a first year engineer? NO they will get paid based on experience the same thing should happen in aviation.

One word you use says it all: should as in should happen in aviation. It is not happening and not anywhere near of happening. The days of fat pay raises and cushy conditions are now but a fading memory. 9/11 was the catalyst and the accelerant used rightly and wrongly to change the world order and the new order of the century is bottom line at all cost.

[duranium]

[quote="Martin Tamme"][/quote]


Quote from Martin Tamme

I hate to point out the obvious; however, if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

End of quote


If this observer may float one scenario past you for your consideration.

You people have been at this fighting front, engaged in battle for some years now, expending, I can only presume, a fair amount of energy and ammunition ( financial resources ). AC, via the Rand formula, is providing you, month in month out, with those resources to man the barricades so they know precisely what they are feeding you and what you are expending. You people cannot expend resources at that rate, on many fronts and one front you are now looking at, point blank, is negotiations and an other huge front, as '' we speak '' that is looming point blank at you people, is the potiential liability from the first battle, not yet lost but things are not looking very good at the present.

Thus said, ( 1 ) AC knows there is a better than 50% chance your association is or will be very soon in a potential and desastrous weakened state. ( 2 ) All knew when your contract was up for renewal, you and AC ,and they knew you had a strike fund that represented a problem for them so you were and are led down the garden path thinking all was rosy.( 3 ) Assuming the joint liability for the discrimination fiasco takes effect and that is looking pretty probable right now so resultant, very low ammo reserves for the next front, the upcoming negotiations battle. RESULT: the house of cards folds in a whisper and you will be eaten alive and AC will reap those windfall gains but pilots will be left out in the cold, as I read, once again.

You people have seemed to sell your company short and that is a very grave mistake. They have more smarts than anybody can shake a stick at and more so Mr. Calin Rovenesku. Just look at the turnaround in the last 18 months. That should tell you something and please spare me the platitudes about pilot contribution. Give credit where credit is earned and deserved, and they sure know how to gaze farther than their proverbial nose, to bad your union seems incapable of doing the same.

[Morry Bund]

Do you really beleive that an employer such as Air Canada, will ever accept handing out a starting salary anywhere near $ 85000 to an unknown entity

To bring the discussion back to earth, may I suggest two factors to consider regarding increasing the starting pay.

1. What would be Air Canada's reaction to a demand for an immediate 130% pay increase for one group of workers that would be required to take the starting salary from $37,000 per year to $85,000 per year? Consider the optics, especially for its dealings with other unions and the public.

2. When Air Canada inevitably says, "NO!" is ACPA willing to endure a significant strike to force the issue? Not on your life, for two reasons. First, it doesn't benefit the majority. Second, it is extremely improbable of being successful.

So, let's get a little bit more realistic, OK?

I remember one of the senior Captains telling me a few years ago of how, in the late 1960's, a group of pilots went outside of the union to tell the head of Flight Ops that if Air Canada didn't do something to bring the starting salary above the poverty line, a number of pilots were going to go to the media to publicize the fact that many Air Canada pilots, at their existing wage, were qualified for and obtaining welfare payments to supplement their wage. Plus ca change...

Apparently, the Company increased the wage independently of any involvement of the union.

[Rockie]

And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

I hate to point out the obvious; however, if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

Consider this.

The union and Air Canada will lose. Mandatory retirement is done in this country and it is unthinkable that Air Canada does not know this because they are simply not that stupid. So Air Canada is going to get whatever benefit arises out of it regardless.

By fighting mandatory retirement and assuming responsibility for half of the damages incurred while doing so, ACPA provided Air Canada with a golden opportunity to do severe damage to the union. All Air Canada had to do was provide a little bit of encouragement and we happily shoot ourselves repeatedly in both feet. Air Canada doesn't even have to provide the gun or ammunition. We are ineptly inflicting ourselves with huge financial liability, caustic disunity and distraction from the real issues at hand. What's not for the company to like?

[vic777]

Something tells me it would cost them,

Does anybody at ACPA know? Does anybody at ACPA care? Has ACPA thought of figuring it out? Is ACPA so hung up and crazy about the merger settlement that they cannot negotiate for the benefit of everyone?

[Clyde River]

And with the windfall gains AC will reap from FlyPast60 they will be able to pay a starting salary of $85,000 and full pay for DH and not even notice it. By the way, what is ACPA's estimate for the amount of windfall profits going to AC as a result of the "New World Order" of "FlyPast60"?

I hate to point out the obvious; however, if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

Consider this.

The union and Air Canada will lose. Mandatory retirement is done in this country and it is unthinkable that Air Canada does not know this because they are simply not that stupid. So Air Canada is going to get whatever benefit arises out of it regardless.

By fighting mandatory retirement and assuming responsibility for half of the damages incurred while doing so, ACPA provided Air Canada with a golden opportunity to do severe damage to the union. All Air Canada had to do was provide a little bit of encouragement and we happily shoot ourselves repeatedly in both feet. Air Canada doesn't even have to provide the gun or ammunition. We are ineptly inflicting ourselves with huge financial liability, caustic disunity and distraction from the real issues at hand. What's not for the company to like?

I'm approaching retirement. Personally, I see a vast difference between a retroactive >60, and a date where the policy changes today, or sometime in the future. This may exclude me. Tough. The cost and disruption of implementing a retroactive policy would be huge in comparison to an approach similar to the USA's, where a date was selected, and everyone on that day and subsequent knew they could continue past 60.

[Rockie]

The cost and disruption of implementing a retroactive policy would be huge in comparison to an approach similar to the USA's, where a date was selected, and everyone on that day and subsequent knew they could continue past 60.

Very true. However in the United States it wasn't a human rights issue and there wasn't a pilot union fighting it to the bitter end, worsening the situation by adding 10 guys to the list of complainants every month. In the United States it was brought into effect with the cooperation of the largest pilot union who decided to manage the change rather than fight it.

We can only look south and admire their foresight and realistic grasp of their own situation.

[accumulous]

I'm approaching retirement. Personally, I see a vast difference between a retroactive >60, and a date where the policy changes today, or sometime in the future. This may exclude me. Tough.

In Canada, it doesn’t exclude you.

I hate to point out the obvious; however, if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

It’s amazing that question was even asked, but not surprising. Of course the Company sees the benefits, every penny of it, which they intend to pass on to the shareholders.

They’ll play Musical Chairs with us until it’s time for them to stop the music. So now would be a good time to get some shares.

For us, it’s all about seniority numbers, always has been, always will be. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Holy Grail.

The Brass Ring.

Seniority.

Air Canada knew all along we were going to lose the mandatory retirement case. Everybody on the planet did, maybe even some of us, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

Act 1.
2900 out of 3000 pilots can’t make max pension on years of service at age 60, so everybody needs to go past 60.

Act 2.
Seven hundred pilots were scheduled to retire in 5 years.

Act 3.
Purge the list – get them all off the top end, then we’ll see about ending mandatory retirement. Do it at all costs, no matter what.

Round and round goes the Carousel.

The Brass Ring is just……..right……….there…………………..

Of course there are massive gains to be made from the end of mandatory retirement. Big savings in productivity through training, and huge benefits to the pension plan. Done right, it’s a bigger script for us.

But that Seniority Brass Ring…………just……….right………..there……….

Of course the Corporation isn’t going to stop the music……….not just yet.
We aren’t quite finished decimating ourselves. Don’t interrupt us. Round and round we go…….

That Seniority Brass Ring……….just………right………there………

Poof…….now it’s gone, and so’s the leverage, and we fall off the horse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_ring

[Stu Pidasso]

There is a substantial difference between what is transpiring here and what happened in the US. As we all know a large number of Pilots in the US were robbed of their Pensions by thieving, low life, Airline Executives.

As such - they were forced to work longer to recover from the financial rape from their own management.

Not the case (at least for the moment) in Canada. Even had we followed the US example and implemented 65, it would not have placated our two star pupils, who are closer to 70.

Short of ACPA accepting a 'no age limit' on retirement (Fly Till You Die,) we were destined to have this fight.

If we all think back to when this fight started, imagine if ACPA had announced they were in favor of 'no age limit' retirement?

There would have been riots in the streets.

[accumulous]

There would have been riots in the streets.

There always has been rioting in the streets.

It's the modus operandi for our entire dysfunctional squadron.

We operate solely through the riot venue.

Tooth and nail, and complete lack of smarts.

It's patently simple for the Corp to strum our tune, in this case 'Crazy Train' by Ozzie Osbourne, grind us into fodder and pass the savings on to the shareholder where it will do the most good.

We're a Corporation's best thing since sliced bread.

[vic777]

where a date was selected, and everyone on that day and subsequent knew they could continue past 60.

We do have such a date, it's August 2009. Does ACPA not give you this information?

[Martin Tamme]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you guys saying that Air Canada is only fighting this because it will create more in-fighting within ACPA (leading to the weakning of the Association), and not because it will cost them in the long run if this were to go through?

[Rockie]

Air Canada will save training costs, especially if we change the way we distribute the salary money so that moving airplanes becomes less of an imperative. And it will be beneficial for the pension plan taking a lot of pressure off them. As far as liability is concerned Air Canada can afford it much better than we can (there goes our strike fund), and the disunity this has caused is well worth the money to them because it will take us years to stop shooting at ourselves if we are even capable of stopping. The DFR might even kill ACPA.

This is a cheap investment for them.

Do you have a better explanation?

[accumulous]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you guys saying that Air Canada is only fighting this because it will create more in-fighting within ACPA (leading to the weakning of the Association), and not because it will cost them in the long run if this were to go through?

Air Canada doesn’t need to create any in-fighting at all. We do that extremely well all by ourselves. It’s the one and only thing we’re really good at. We have single-handedly managed to get the CIRB, the CHRT, the CHRC, the Federal Court, the RCMP, and Parliament, all throwing a wet blanket right over us. We could write the book on self-inflicted litigation. AC doesn’t need to waste any time in our little snake pit.

There are huge savings to be realized at a critical time in the airline’s history by controlling costs and really improving the pension plan. But why jump the gun and wind up negotiating the savings into the pilots’ hands. It’s more about the shareholder, and that’s very important. Of course AC will play ball with us for now. Keep your eye on the Brass Ring to the exclusion of all else. Sign here.

[vic777]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you guys saying that Air Canada is only fighting this because it will create more in-fighting within ACPA (leading to the weakning of the Association), and not because it will cost them in the long run if this were to go through?

You're 100% wrong, about the windfall gains. The ACPA in-fighting is just a pleasant byproduct. Aside from the "damages" and unnecessary retraining costs as forced retired Pilots become "incompetent", show me where this exercise is going to cost AC one thin dime. The windfall gains are in the billions. The junior Pilot should be getting these windfall gains.

[Understated]

... if AC were to reap windfall gains as a result from FlyPast60, then why are they fighting it? Something tells me it would cost them, otherwise they would embrace the idea.

That is the question of the decade. Why are they fighting it? The evidence about the training costs was stunning; they admitted that it costs them around $400,000 a year in lost training costs for every year of retirement not deferred. Ditto the pension plan. Huge savings to the plan by having more contributors and lower draw downs.

Short term readjustment costs too high? It's been six years now. That's not short term.

Why did they JR the V-K liability decision? That expanded the issue of mandatory retirement from two pilots to 20,000 employees in the airline, and 800,000 in the country. Did they actually believe that they were going to persuade the Federal Court judge who sent the original case back to the Tribunal to decide the Section 1 Charter issue, based on her instructions, that they would be successful when it got back to her this past November? Or was it just another delay tactic? Big downside, when you consider the potential for having to revamp the retirement policies for all the employees in the company.

Maybe somebody has some insight as to what their game plan is, but I haven't seen anything persuasive, at least not yet. Do they even have a game plan, other than deny, deny, deny, and litigate, litigate, litigate?