Repeal of Mandatory Retirement Bill Passes Second Reading

[Rockie]

My comment is that dialogue is a two way street. It is a situation where the issues, and concerns of both sides, are respected and acknowledged. Only then can an attempt at an amicable resolution take place though dialogue.

You can't be serious? When, at any time, did the union promote or invite any discussion on this issue whatsoever? They decided...and that was it.

[Brick Head]

Rockie & Vic777,

We all know this is well beyond the dialogue Point of no return.

The point. And only point I was making, is that a true dialogue requires a willingness from both sides to address the concerns of the other.

Absent this willingness dialogue can not exist. To date all each side has done is make demands of the other. Absolute unwillingness to address the others concerns.

There is no willingness for dialogue from either side, and never has been. Raymond's version of dialogue is to let him explain why we must do as he envisions. That isn't dialogue. It is a demand.

Painting oneself as the only one who was interested in dialogue, is therefor rather disingenuous.

No one is willing.

[Rockie]

The point. And only point I was making, is that a true dialogue requires a willingness from both sides to address the concerns of the other.

Don't be disengenuous by trying to keep this an us vs them subject.

The union should have had the brains to see that this was coming no matter what and that it had better be dealt with. As our representatives it is their responsibility to know this. Knowing this it is their responsibility to ensure the change garners the most benefit for the members as a group while minimizing the negative impact. They fulfil that responsibility by investigating it and opening a discussion/education program so that the pilots are fully aware of what it is all about.

This is their responsibility Brick Head! What have they done to fulfil that responsibility?

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

Brick Head wrote:
My comment is that dialogue is a two way street. It is a situation where the issues, and concerns of both sides, are respected and acknowledged. Only then can an attempt at an amicable resolution take place though dialogue.


This is your best post yet.

However, dialogue has happened, for many years, and acpa stayed the steady course of failure. Now, you are suggesting, as the end of this issue is in sight, that there be some/more/increase in dialogue. Its to late. Want an example:

The latest pilots, who are still employeed, filed a grievance request against termination. acpa, denied it. Another DFR with CIRB. Yet, they (acpa) could have gone the route of the other unions in AC, and kept the pilots employeed, reduced their liability/remedy costs, and shown responsible leadership to the acpa pilots. That did not happen, and that was just last week. So, no, dialogue is not going to happen at the exclusive request/requirement of the acpa elite.

This is going to cost millions of dollars, that could have/should have, been realized, and the money wasted, should have been issued to the new hires, PG group, and the narrow body pilots. What a complete, failure, acpa has been on the FP60 fiasco.

How does acpa, think, for one moment, that they are going to beat this issue, when, the other unions, are bring their members back to work, that were terminated, AFTER many of the acpa members!! This is just insane.

[bcflyer]

All this talk of dialogue to avoid this situation and yet NOBODY has shown me any compromises the FP60 pilots were willing to make in order to minimize the damage to the junior pilots. You slam ACPA for not preparing for this. Please tell me what they should have done (other than roll over and play dead) that would have appeased the guys who want to stay longer.

[Brick Head]

Geesh guys,

Ray lamented over dialogue on the previous page. Not me.

And no, dialogue has never ever happened between the parties.

A true dialogue requires both sides to acknowledge each others concerns. That has never remotely even come close to taking place. Not in the past and not at this very moment.

So although Ray may lament over a lost opportunity for dialogue, that has resulted in what seems like endless litigation, he is equally responsible. As in us all.

My point to him was simple. If you really want dialogue? Do something about it. Otherwise it is just empty words.

The first step is both sides respecting and acknowledging the concerns of the other. The next step is a willingness to address them in an effort to find an amicable resolution.

He who is not willing to do the above is not willing to enter meaningful dialogue.

So if Ray wants meaningful dialogue? Shit or get off the pot. I am not saying it would be reciprocated. I am saying complaining about it while doing nothing to address it, is hypocritical.

[Rockie]

You slam ACPA for not preparing for this. Please tell me what they should have done (other than roll over and play dead) that would have appeased the guys who want to stay longer.

Read and think about what you're saying.

They fulfil that responsibility by investigating it and opening a discussion/education program so that the pilots are fully aware of what it is all about.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the FP60 group because this change was coming...no matter what. Even if the FP60 group didn't exist. Wrap your brain around that.

[Rockie]

He who is not willing to do the above is not willing to enter meaningful dialogue.

So if Ray wants meaningful dialogue? Shit or get off the pot. I am not saying it would be reciprocated. I am saying complaining about it while doing nothing to address it, is hypocritical.

You're barking up the wrong tree again Brick Head. Who do you propose moderates this dialogue? ACPA perhaps who should have been doing it all along?

Turn your excellent recommendations toward where they should be directed.

And you wonder why I blame ACPA?

[Raymond Hall]

Well in fact it is your problem if what you really want is dialogue. I am assuming here that your desire for dialogue is more than just words. Dialogue is unreasonable to expect if either party is unwilling to address the issues of the opposing view. So if you want dialogue? Address the concerns of those who oppose you. If you are unwilling to do that? Then you are not really willing to enter a dialogue. You are just making demands.

There is no willingness for dialogue from either side, and never has been. Raymond's version of dialogue is to let him explain why we must do as he envisions. That isn't dialogue. It is a demand.

That would be a valid criticism were I to have some sort of dominion over one side of this dispute. Not only do I not represent all of the Complainants, but given that the underlying issue is largely one of statutory interpretation in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no-one could ever have jurisdiction to speak on behalf of all the allegedly aggrieved parties. So how could I "negotiate" anything on behalf of any one? Dialogue cannot even approach negotiation, because there is no jurisdiction to negotiate anything. Before the ink was dry on any purported agreement, someone would come along and demand their full rights under the law. And they would get them.

The dialogue that I had in mind was a complete exchange of ideas with regard to accepting the statutory realities and attempting to minimize the adverse consequences. That is something that we can do. Denying that the law is applicable to Air Canada pilots is self-defeating. Complaining that the law is unfair is likewise self-defeating. And attacking the individuals who are insisting that their union and their employer comply with the law is similarly self-deating. So what kind of dialogue can we undertake?

From what I have been hearing from the pilots who have access to the new ACP Private Forum, the predominant motivation of the pilots there is to continue slandering and attacking anyone who wishes to deal with the legal realities, and to continue denying reality while referring to anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint as "greedy old pricks." I can't wait to sign up for some dialogue.

[43S/172E]

Raymond your comments on this.

We have now received confirmation from the RCMP that the investigation of ACPA in reference to the Human Rights Act, has concluded in our favour. There will be no charges laid against either myself, ACPA or its committee members. This is further vindication of our conduct throughout the Age 60 issue.

On a related note, you may recall that ACPA filed a complaint with a provincial law society over the conduct of a lawyer representing the interests of a number of retired pilots. The result of their investigation was to issue a "reminder letter" to this lawyer reminding him of the terms of their Code of Conduct. It is unfortunate that this was necessary but we are pleased with the decision of the law society and consider the matter closed.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond your comments on this.

No comment. That subject is not germane to this thread.

[Rockie]

Raymond your comments on this.

No comment. That subject is not germane to this thread.

How about instead we hear your thoughts on the imminent end to mandatory retirement and ACPA's complete failure to prepare for it. Let's hear your opinion on the millions ACPA will have thrown away fighting a battle they knew they wouldn't win.

While you're at it, what do you think of ACPA ignoring their ethical and legal obligation to represent every pilot at Air Canada?

[Brick Head]

The dialogue that I had in mind was a complete exchange of ideas with regard to accepting the statutory realities and attempting to minimize the adverse consequences. That is something that we can do.

We agree again? However those are words not actions. I have never seen any action that would lead me to believe you were interested in a constructive dialogue, with a willingness to address adverse consequences, other than those solutions that left you with an intact benefit equal to the day you retired. Unfortunately those solutions are severely lacking, and as a result do not address the concerns of those whom you wish to have a dialogue with. To have that dialogue you must address those concerns or it will never happen, nor ever had a chance of happening. Irreconcilable differences is a better description, rather than blaming a lack of dialogue.

But of course for the many other reasons you listed above, in reality it doesn't matter does it.

So why lament the lack of dialogue, as if it is your opponent fault, when you know it can not really produce anything? When you know that dialogue is a two way street that both sides have famously failed at?

Except of course to cast aspersions.

From what I have been hearing from the pilots who have access to the new ACP Private Forum, the predominant motivation of the pilots there is to continue slandering and attacking anyone who wishes to deal with the legal realities, and to continue denying reality while referring to anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint as "greedy old pricks." I can't wait to sign up for some dialogue.

We all know we both have hot heads on both side of this issue who express opinion or advocate things that are counter productive. This forum is filled with comments that the greater membership would find offensive. However it would be a mistake to take that attitude as the attitude of you or the ACPA leadership.

Just look at Rockies post above. He wants you to get back into the mode of slamming ACPA once again. How is that helpful? He is a cheer leader for aggressive angry talk that leads to nothing productive at all. Just reciprocation of the same kind of dialogue in return.

[Raymond Hall]

So if Ray wants meaningful dialogue? Shit or get off the pot. I am not saying it would be reciprocated. I am saying complaining about it while doing nothing to address it, is hypocritical.

First of all, I would like to point out that my first name is Raymond, not Ray. I had it legally changed several decades ago, for personal reasons.

Now, Brick Head, exactly what would you propose that I do? I go to my own base meeting and sit quietly in the back without saying a word whereupon the MEC Chair interrupts the Base meeting, stops the web cast, embarrasses me in front of everyone by publicly chastising me for attending, and then unceremoniously turfs me out, to the applause of a number of members, without allowing me to say a word in response.

A few months later I approach the MEC Chair at the Winnipeg Retirement Dinner (where I graciously declined to accept my plaque and make a speech, when I was fully entitled to) and the MEC Chair tells me in a loud voice, in front of the guests, "F*** OFF!" Not exactly great dialogue.

You should listen to what Rockie has to say, especially his point above that this was going to happen even if there was no Fly Past 60 Coalition. Your post clearly suggests that we, those who are telling the union that its actions are illegal, are to blame for the lack of dialogue.

Exactly what would you propose that I do, in order to, as you put it, "shit or get off the pot?"

[Rockie]

Just look at Rockies post above. He wants you to get back into the mode of slamming ACPA once again. How is that helpful? He is a cheer leader for aggressive angry talk that leads to nothing productive at all. Just reciprocation of the same kind of dialogue in return.

I'm not slamming them Brick Head. I'm holding them accountable for ignoring their obligations and for causing this disaster.

BTW, I wasn't asking Ray those questions. I already know his opinions on those issues and I was trying to get somebody else to give it a moments thought.

[Brick Head]

Now, Brick Head, exactly what would you propose that I do?

What do you do? You avoid making it personal and agree to acknowledge, respect, and have a willingness to address the issues of those whom you are in conflict with.

That statement cuts both ways of course.

You should listen to what Rockie has to say, especially his point above that this was going to happen even if there was no Fly Past 60 Coalition. So then, exactly what would you propose that I do, in order to, as you put it, "shit or get off the pot?"

What you don't do if you have a true desire for productive dialogue, is encourage the splintering remarks of the poster you just did.

Again the comment about shit or get off the pot is appropriate. If you are the leader you claim to be. If what you really desire is dialogue? Do something about it.

Don't bitch about the lack of it here.

[Raymond Hall]

What do you do? You avoid making it personal and agree to acknowledge, respect, and have a willingness to address the issues of those whom you are in conflict with.

Show me where I have done anything but be respectful.

If you are the leader you claim to be. If what you really desire is dialogue? Do something about it. Don't bitch about the lack of it here.

First of I, I never claimed to be a leader. I did claim to have a modicum of insight and a willingness to act on it. Second, telling me to do something about it is not helpful. What do you suggest that I do? The last time I spoke to anyone at ACPA about what is going on, they filed a complaint against me with the Law Society and maintained that I could only speak to them through their lawyer, even though I have a right as a member to talk to the union reps who have a legal duty to represent my interests. The YYZ Base Chair went even further to prevent dialogue. He openly stated that ACPA does not represent "those pilots." As I said above, great dialogue.

Now, please don't tell me again, "do something about it." Tell me exactly what you suggest that I should do.

[Brick Head]

Show me where I have done anything but be respectful.

Kind of surprised you see nothing wrong in your actions with regard to the retirement party. Showing up at a retirement celebration with the intent to hijack the agenda for your own purpose? I realize everyone has a right to speak, but do you think it was respectful to your peers who wanted that celebration? Do you think it was respectful to attempt taking that celebration away from them? Could you not have allowed those who wished the celebration their right to it?

My way, or the highway, leads to a lot of doors getting slammed in ones face during life. Dealing appropriately with conflict is a key ingredient in getting the conflict resolved. Intransigence leads to slammed doors and escalation.

Now, please don't tell me again, "do something about it." Tell me exactly what you suggest that I should do.

Now that is a tempting offer. Just kidding.

The message is simple Raymond. Dialogue will only happen, assuming you actually want it, when you are willing to address the concerns of those who oppose you.

Intransigence will beget intransigence.

You want dialogue? Address the concerns of those who oppose you. Acknowledge and respect those concerns. Display an active willingness to address them.

If your not willing to take those steps then stop claiming you want dialogue.

Instead call it ACPA won't respond to my demands.

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

Thanks for staying in the conversation.

It is very important that everyone who reads this forum, gets it real clear, a large number of pilots tried to file a grievance prior to being forced out. acpa, did not do anything about the grievances, period. They simply put them on the list of grievances, to die a natural death. That, is not dialogue, in any shape or forum. When it was shown, that they could mitigate their (acpa) position, via grievances, acpa, did the same old one trick pony show, they refused. Regardless, of what anyone wanted to talk about, acpa, was on a fixed, LONG TERM TRAIL, that started years ago, via various, MEC's, and they carried the flag, year after year, with no dialogue, except, see you in court. They did not want to talk. They still dont, and they wont, until the world turns the other way.

Their style of thinking, actions, and reactions, are way beyond being reasonable. This is not a new, just in thing. This has a long history, and never, ever, did acpa try to get anyone together, and brainstorm what would be best for all parties. If they did, we would not all be in this current situation.

The courts have the reins now, and dialogue will just be noise in the wind. That time, in life, is over.

[Raymond Hall]

Kind of surprised you see nothing wrong in your actions with regard to the retirement party. Showing up at a retirement celebration with the intent to hijack the agenda for your own purpose? I realize everyone has a right to speak, but do you think it was respectful to your peers who wanted that celebration? Do you think it was respectful to attempt taking that celebration away from them? Could you not have allowed those who wished the celebration their right to it?

You obviously know absolutely nothing about what happened there. Your assumptions and misinformation are preposterous and disgusting. The fact that you would actually publish those outrageous allegations here as if they were fact causes me to signficantly lower my opinion of you. Respect? You talk about respect? How about respect for the facts? How about criticizing me about what you know about me, not about what someone else told you about what someone else again heard about me.

Dialogue will only happen, assuming you actually want it, when you are willing to address the concerns of those who oppose you. Address the concerns of those who oppose you. Acknowledge and respect those concerns. Display an active willingness to address them.

Meaningless drivel. Those who oppose "me?" Do you have a perception problem? Are you not able to see the real issue here? I am not the one responsible for changing your work environment--the end of mandatory retirement is the cause of the change, not my involvement in the change. For the fiftieth time, this is not about me. It is truly time for you to wake up and realize that this is an issue that needs to be managed on a strategic basis. I have almost no impact on how it is managed, except for the use of the litigation sledge hammer, that I use as the tool of last resort

But you do. You are someone the the MEC will listen to.

[accumulous]

Again the comment about shit or get off the pot is appropriate. If you are the leader you claim to be. If what you really desire is dialogue? Do something about it.

Here’s the pot you’re sitting on.

The force retired pilots are coming back, with no loss of seniority, no loss of benefits, and restitution. If you want to change their pay parameters, take a good run at it and see what happens.

That’s the pot you’re sitting on. That’s the pot the Legal System has you sitting on.

Fasten your seatbelt.

No amount of dialogue is going to get anybody to clean out your bedpan and spray it with your own personal brand of Lysol.

You’re sitting on a litigation pot. You can get off the litigation pot and save yourself a huge expense and get on with the same program as the rest of the entire world or you can stay on it and get it all over yourself.

When you get to age 60 you are no longer going to be forced to retire.

So in terms of dialogue what you need to do right now is turn around to the new hire pilots and you need to have a dialogue with them. You need to explain to them how and why they are on the hook for the restitution phase.

Then you need to have dialogue with them about all the concessions you are going to make to sort things out with them once you turn 60.

Once you have done that show us all the numbers.

In addition to that show us the results of the ‘dialogue’ that has taken place at any other airline in North America.

[Rockie]

What you don't do if you have a true desire for productive dialogue, is encourage the splintering remarks of the poster you just did.

After all that's happened you either have a lot of nerve accusing me of splintering remarks or you really just don't get it still. When ACPA shows some indication of doing their job Brick Head, I will gladly lay off them. Not until then.

If more people had been doing that we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Consider what I'm doing a free service.

[vic777]

Brick Head, regarding "FlyPast60", there never was any room for dialogue on that. That change was coming no matter what anybody had to say about it. Where ACPA dropped the ball was on the opportunity to negotiate FlyPast60 with AC to get the best possible results for all Pilots given the NWO. Now, the negotiations are over, the lads are bending over, and the opportunity has been lost. The opportunity was lost due to ACPA's myopic attitude and reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue. Raymond did nothing but act as lawyer for the FlyPast60 group after ACPA refused to represent their interests. The true motive behind the actions of the ACPA Elite can only be guessed at.

[Rockie]

All of a sudden Brick Head wants to take the high road and promote dialogue. But he never answered the question I asked about who would moderate the dialogue. Him? ACPA? Mr. Dressup?

There was never any interest in a dialogue or ACPA would have had one. The dialogue, if there were one, could only discuss how to implement the change. Not if there should be one.

Now we are going to be told how to implement it by other people right after they tell us how much money we owe to the people discriminated against. Because dialogue or not, FP60 group or not, Air Canada or not, federally regulated industries in Canada are finally catching up with the rest of the country and ending mandatory retirement.

It isn't up to the FP60 group to compromise. It's up to Air Canada to comply with the laws of the country.

[accumulous]

The true motive………….can only be guessed at.

Here’s a guess. It ain’t complicated Rocket Science.

1. Exterminate 700 senior pilots.

2. Slight technical difficulty. Turns out it’s illegal, with serious repercussions.

3. Now what?

4. Not sure, any ideas?

5. Nope.

6. Sure is dark in here.

7. Yep.

8. Should we turn the lights on?

9. Nope.