Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

[vic777]

BTW, when the company moved from 3 crew to 2 crew aircraft where was the pilot windfall on that one?

It went to AC management, the Pilots sure didn't get any.

[yycflyguy]

BTW, when the company moved from 3 crew to 2 crew aircraft where was the pilot windfall on that one?

It went to AC management, the Pilots sure didn't get any.

Yup, just like the bonuses attached to EBITIDAR while the rest of the groups took concessions. Just like how this one will play out.

[MackTheKnife]

Wow, the Spin Doctors put in a little overtime yesterday on the hearing!

The Nazi comparisons will be next!

Yesterday the ACPA president became a traitor and sell out queen to close to 90 % of his members who will never make full pension. The ACPA scorched earth policy is alive and well.

[600RVR]

duranium,

If from what you say "your not a part of this group" and "don't have any vested intrest in this" then why are you so wrapped around the axel about this subject involving AC pilots, and what we decide to do with a contract when it don't involve you. What group are you a part of, and what do you do for a career if this don't involve you. You know we are all AC pilots. If there is mandatory retirement where you work how do your fellow coworkers feel about change. and how it affects them directly.


regards
600RVR

P.S. in saying all of this and 14 more pages of ring around the rosey, this is beyond any of us, we have very little control at this point until the final decision is made so maybe we should all just chill and wait. Now control of the contract, thats another story..

[Norwegianwood]

Wow, the Spin Doctors put in a little overtime yesterday on the hearing!

The Nazi comparisons will be next!

Yesterday the ACPA president became a traitor and sell out queen to close to 90 % of his members who will never make full pension. The ACPA scorched earth policy is alive and well.

He didn't sell out 90% of the membership, he looked after the 10% elite that make up the majority of the MEC and have been scorching the earth now for at least 10 years with their one cell attitude, but then who am I to point this out. It's beyond time to clean house and get real representation inhouse or outside. Up to you guy's and gal's - how much of this crap do you have to eat before you choke to death...........................

[FADEC]

"Where did the windfall gains go when Air Canada moved from three crew to two crew?" A good question; and a sad story very similar to this one.
When the 767 was being introduced as a two pilot airplane, CALPA decided that they would buck the tide of change and refuse to fly the 767 with two pilots. (They might have been encouraged by a VP Flt OPS who actually said in a Road Show; "We'll never buy another two pilot airplane" to the bafflement of anyone who was paying attention to the Industry) CALPA assured the members that they could win this fight, and proceeded with a special assessment to pay those shown on the 767 to stay home, while AC tried to operate the 767 with Supervisory Pilots. The whole thing went to arbitration, and CALPA lost. The AC pilots flew the 767 with two pilots with only a token bit of recognition of the windfall savings gained by the Company. The sad thing is of course that many pilots tried to have CALPA recognise reality, accept the two pilot crew, with the S/O salary savings split between the pilots and AC. CALPA chose to fight change rather than manage change, and ended up with virtually nothing.
Sound Familiar?

[FADEC]

One of the Canards promulgated by ACPA from the beginning of this issue is the effect on the Pension.
ACPA has repeatedly implied (stated) the the Pension is threatened by the end of Mandatory Retirement.
This is exactly backward. It is not "Math", but rather grade three arithmetic. If someone works longer, and thus collects pension for a shorter time, there is a massive benefit to the Pension. The ACPA Pension Committee told the MEC that, but clearly, the MEC members did not understand, or didn't want to hear.
One road to preserving the "Generous Pension" the Mr Strachan spoke of is to beg pilots to work longer, thus putting the pension into surplus rather than the present deficit.
Hard to understand why ACPA has been deliberately misinforming the members on this issue.

[Raymond Hall]

The Parliamentary Committee deliberating Bill C-481 met in camera this morning to discuss further scheduling of its discussions of the Bill. The Committee decided that its discussion will continue on Tuesday, March 8th.

[yycflyguy]

One of the Canards promulgated by ACPA from the beginning of this issue is the effect on the Pension.
ACPA has repeatedly implied (stated) the the Pension is threatened by the end of Mandatory Retirement.
This is exactly backward. It is not "Math", but rather grade three arithmetic. If someone works longer, and thus collects pension for a shorter time, there is a massive benefit to the Pension. The ACPA Pension Committee told the MEC that, but clearly, the MEC members did not understand, or didn't want to hear.
One road to preserving the "Generous Pension" the Mr Strachan spoke of is to beg pilots to work longer, thus putting the pension into surplus rather than the present deficit.
Hard to understand why ACPA has been deliberately misinforming the members on this issue.

... or why the company would be fighting it.

[vic777]

... or why the company would be fighting it.

If you have any idea please fill us in. If it's some BFOR issue that's really sad, all the Governments or Airlines have to do is ask ICAO to raise the age to Seventy, problem solved.

[bcflyer]

... or why the company would be fighting it.

Come on guys you're smarter than that.. Do you really think this is all about the pilots? Think on a much bigger scale. Think F/A's, CSA's and ramp guys. They all have B-Scale wages for their new hires. If the pilots get fly till you die then all the other groups will want to work forever as well. Simply put when a pilot leaves, the overall amount of cash being paid out for salaries doesn't really change. When one of the other groups retires they are replaced by a much lower paid employee. Stop the outflow of senior people and AC has to keep paying the seniors instead of paying a newbie... Make sense?

[vic777]

Do you really think this is all about the pilots?

Do you mean that if ACPA had not agreed to accept half the damages, AC would have fought this just as hard and just as long ... anyway? Our guys are just not street smart are they?

If the pilots get fly till you die then all the other groups will want to work forever as well. ... Make sense?

So while the Pilots FlyPast60 is a big windfall gain ... the other employee groups will cost AC? Maybe you're right. I'd like to see some figures. Can we see ACPA's calculations on how much in the way of windfall gains will accrue to AC as a result of FlyPast60? I guess the other groups will be going down this road no matter what, eh? What if all other groups get to work longer but the Pilots do not, a big loss for AC, n'est-ce pas? I can think of a different business plan that would get around this "other employee", problem.

While we're talking about seeing some figures, the ACPA President said, "Senior AC Captains are overpaid". I'd like to see some figures on that. How much are AC Senior Captains overpaid, according to ACPA?

[mbav8r]

Has anyone seen this, I looked back to the 16th and couldn't find any mention of it? There is a section which I believe outlines Air Canada's position on why they're fighting it, it comes down to a scheduling nightmare and having to hire alot of extra pilots for schedule conflicts.

OTTAWA – The issue of whether Air Canada can force older pilots to retire is back in play after a Federal Court judge found the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ignored key evidence in a 2009 decision about the airline’s mandatory-retirement policy.

In a decision posted to the Federal Court website this week, Judge Anne Mactavish ordered the quasi-judicial tribunal to reconsider whether youth is a genuine occupational requirement for Air Canada pilots.

In 2009, the tribunal ruled in favour of Robert Kelly and George Vilven, two Air Canada pilots who challenged their mandatory retirement at age 60. It found that mandatory retirement provisions in the airline’s collective agreement with the Air Canada Pilots’ Association violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a second decision last fall, it reinstated Kelly and Vilven and ordered Air Canada to compensate them for lost income.

The tribunal has since heard a complaint from 68 other former Air Canada pilots, with a decision still pending. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has referred complaints by another large group of former pilots to the tribunal and is investigating even more.

The Federal Court got involved after Air Canada and the pilots’ association filed applications for judicial review of the tribunal’s 2009 ruling.

In her 128-page decision, Mactavish upheld the tribunal’s finding on the charter issue. But she also concluded that it erred in finding Air Canada had failed to demonstrate that age is a bona-fide occupational requirement for its pilots, which would make the violation of their charter rights justifiable.

At the tribunal hearing, Air Canada argued that scrapping mandatory retirement would make it almost impossible to schedule its pilots within International Civil Aviation Organization rules. That organization allows pilots-in-command younger than age 65 to fly internationally, as long as one pilot in the crew is younger than 60.

Air Canada says 86 per cent of its flights are to an international destination or pass through foreign airspace, and thus are subject to the international body’s rules

Within five years of the abolition of mandatory retirement, a substantial percentage of Air Canada’s pilots would be over age 60, the airline told the tribunal. It could accommodate only a “very limited number” in that age bracket before scheduling would become unworkable, it said.

But the tribunal appeared to ignore much of the evidence central to Air Canada’s case, Mactavish observed.

“This is not merely a situation where the tribunal failed to specifically refer to evidence contrary to its findings,” she wrote.

“Rather, the tribunal states quite categorically that there was ‘no evidence’ on these points.”

That gave rise to the “inescapable inference” that the tribunal overlooked important portions of the airline’s case, she said.

At one point, for example, the tribunal found evidence was “lacking” as to the potential costs Air Canada would incur if it had to hire additional pilots to cover its schedule. But, Mactavish noted, the airline “actually provided detailed evidence” on that issue.

“No explanation was provided by the tribunal as to why this evidence was ‘lacking.’ This element of the tribunal’s decision thus lacks the transparency and accountability required of a reasonable decision.”

As a result, the judge set aside that part of the tribunal’s decision and ordered it to re-determine, based on all the evidence, whether Air Canada has established that age is a bona-fide occupational requirement for its pilots. If the answer is yes, that could validate Air Canada’s mandatory retirement policy.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Can ... z1EMf4ER3T

[Understated]

Has anyone seen this, I looked back to the 16th and couldn't find any mention of it?

There is apparently no previous reference to this article, but the issue that it addresses is answered on Page 1 of this thread, in the last post on that page.

It is a non-issue, for the reasons given there.

The reason that the newspaper article appeared one week after the decision was released is because the Federal Court did not post the decision on its website for that long (128 pages was a problem for them), so the media did not pick up on the case until then, even though the case was available from the parties.

When the media did pick up on the case, it focused almost exclusively on the extremely minor issue (BFOR), and totally overlooked the major issue, namely that the Court had dismissed the employer's application for review of the Charter decision regarding the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement exemption.

That rejection make the decision binding on the Tribunal on that point of law, and will have consequences for all subsequent cases before the Tribunal. There are only two steps left, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, before it truly is all over, as far as the litigation is concerned. As far as the law is concerned, the present law is as stated by the Court, and it remains that way unless and until the decision is overturned.

[vic777]

At the tribunal hearing, Air Canada argued that scrapping mandatory retirement would make it almost impossible to schedule its pilots within International Civil Aviation Organization rules. That organization allows pilots-in-command younger than age 65 to fly internationally, as long as one pilot in the crew is younger than 60.

All that's required is for the World's Airlines and Aviation regulatory agencies to ask ICAO to change their "rules". Problem solved, cost zero. This is of course, what is going to happen. Why, because world wide, with medical checks on Pilots, Sixty is your Grandfathers Forty.

[yycflyguy]

At the tribunal hearing, Air Canada argued that scrapping mandatory retirement would make it almost impossible to schedule its pilots within International Civil Aviation Organization rules. That organization allows pilots-in-command younger than age 65 to fly internationally, as long as one pilot in the crew is younger than 60.

All that's required is for the World's Airlines and Aviation regulatory agencies to ask ICAO to change their "rules". Problem solved, cost zero. This is of course, what is going to happen. Why, because world wide, with medical checks on Pilots, Sixty is your Grandfathers Forty.

For sure. On that logic, why would ANY airline hire anyone under the age of 60?

[vic777]

For sure. On that logic, why would ANY airline hire anyone under the age of 60?

Duh? Because they want someone to work for them, for the next Fifty years maybe? Come on, why are we being stupid? Seriously, the ICAO "rule", makes no sense and is a hindrance to Global Commerce. Intelligent people must change the "outdated" ICAO "rule" immediately. ICAO must, "Lead, follow or get out of the way"

[massey308]

the company is not going to want over sixty. if Vilven and Kelly are any indication as to how there training will go there will be huge issues. Both of these two still have not made it through. Both have required extra training through the whole course.

[Lost in Saigon]

the company is not going to want over sixty. if Vilven and Kelly are any indication as to how there training will go there will be huge issues. Both of these two still have not made it through. Both have required extra training through the whole course.

Kelly's training and line indoc seem to be progressing normally. Why do you think otherwise?

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Both have required extra training through the whole course.

This statement is categorically incorrect and amounts to nothing more than malicious slander perpetrated under the safety of anonymity. Word is that Kelly has progressed without any delay whatsoever, and has now completed over 50 hours of line indoc.

Even if one or both of these individuals did have problems of any kind, how do you leap from training difficulty to age-based attribution. As the statisticians say, a sample of one is statistically meaningless. A sample of two is next to meaningless.

Why don't you take a five or seven year leave from flying and come back to do a conversion course from an Airbus to a Boeing, especially if you've never flown a Boeing before. Superimpose on that requirement the need to update yourself on all of the technical and flight planning systems that have gone from being entirely paper-based to almost entirely electronically-based. Let's see how you perform, at any age.

Regardless of the individual performance of either or both of these two individuals on returning to active flying status, the entire suggestion is totally irrelevant anyway. The issue in dispute is contractual mandatory retirement, which is being challenged on legal grounds, not competency based on licensing standards with no age restriction, as determined by Transport Canada.

[massey308]

actually it hasnt. i will spare the details.flight ops is growing more and more concerned about what to do with their training.

[yycflyguy]

Why don't you take a five or seven year leave from flying and come back to do a conversion course from an Airbus to a Boeing, especially if you've never flown a Boeing before. Superimpose on that requirement the need to update yourself on all of the technical and flight planning systems that have gone from being entirely paper-based to almost entirely electronically-based. Let's see how you perform, at any age.

Daunting task. Makes you wonder why anyone would suffer through it. Oh yeah, I remember why now.

The same argument could be made for new hires learning a new aircraft, new SOPs, new technical bulletins, where to find appropriate materials. For some its their first jet. For some it is their first exposure to full motion simulators and they don't get to play a human rights card. New hires are placed on probation and if their progress is not to standard are in jeopardy of losing their career. Sounds like reverse discrimination case to me that FTYD returnees get preferential treatment and unlimited training while a new hire faces termination. This distinction between the two is based on when they entered the company.

[Norwegianwood]

actually it hasnt. i will spare the details.flight ops is growing more and more concerned about what to do with their training.

IF this is true, I place BLAME squarly in the lap of AC for forcing them out 5 and 7 years ago and acpa for NOT representing them at the time to make sure they were current until now.
AC now has an obligation to bring them back to the standard they were at at the time of their forced retirement.
Not my opinion but that of the court and HRT............

[yycflyguy]

actually it hasnt. i will spare the details.flight ops is growing more and more concerned about what to do with their training.

IF this is true, I place BLAME squarly in the lap of AC for forcing them out 5 and 7 years ago and acpa for NOT representing them at the time to make sure they were current until now.
AC now has an obligation to bring them back to the standard they were at at the time of their forced retirement.
Not my opinion but that of the court and HRT............

That is quite the redirection of blame. My performance is lacking so obviously it is someone else's fault.

[accumulous]

Daunting task. Makes you wonder why anyone would suffer through it. Oh yeah, I remember why now.

The key word this time is ‘Suffer’.

Sociology shows you why this case is no different than any of the other Major cases of Discrimination in North American history.

It doesn’t really matter what the Category of Discrimination is, whether it’s based on Religion, Race, Age, Sex, or whatever.

All Human Rights organizations have identified a string of key elements or prohibited grounds of Discrimination as these elements will massively test the stamina of the members of society who are affected by Systemic Discrimination.

The case of Discrimination against the American negro is the one most often quoted because of its pervasiveness and its focus on the most sinister elements of our society.

The ‘punk’ element is always ready, willing, and able to stand at the head of the stream and go on the attack.

The present case of Age Discrimination is no different.

This case has become so huge and so pervasive, that no less than 6 major Federal Agencies including the CHRT, CHRC, CIRB, Federal Court, Parliament and the RCMP are concurrently involved.

Anyone who pursues the embodiment of their Individual Rights as afforded them under the Charter can expect to come under a relentless, withering attack, often personal, always debasing, always challenging, often completely unchecked, and it always comes with the territory.

There are always those who will wade out into the stream and try to cut the legs right out from under the persons striving for their rights.

In the case of Ageism, it will always by definition be members of the youth contingent who make the first advances. It spreads like a bad rash and despite the best efforts to stop the Discrimination, Complainants will always be fully exposed at unpredictable times, to the onslaught.

Discrimination based on Ageism brings with it a special set of challenges and the persons seeking their rights in that regard can face a monumental task against seemingly huge obstacles.

The older person will have the benefit of wisdom and experience but still face the prospect of sometimes buckling under the push of sheer numbers. Overt Ageism takes many forms, and affords itself attacks on many fronts.

It is a tribute to gentlemen like Vilven and Kelly to have withstood the test of time with the kind of guts it takes to stand up for their rights and to have pushed on against formidable odds for almost 8 years.

All the very best to them, keep your chins up, there is a massive contingent of well-wishers behind you, who will always be there to help you along against all odds.