BFOR

[Rockie]

Your war analogy nicely sums up why this had to go to the CHRT and courts to get settled, and can be applied equally to both "combatants". Time will tell which side will be defiant, and which side magnanimous.

[DLurker]

First let me say I'am not a pilot and have no vested interest except curiosity.
My son is a pilot but not for AC.
I have watched and read both sides of the argument. Very good points on both sides by
some well versed and very intelligent people on both sides of the argument

I would think with all the time and thought put in to this argument by both sides,
by very intelligent people, that you people should be able to come up with a working arrangement
that would work for both sides.

There seems to be far to much time spent arguing who is right and who is wrong, and not enough discussion on how to solve the problem.

The only one winning right now is the Management not the pilots as a whole group.

Only an outsiders view.

[yycflyguy]

First let me say I'am not a pilot and have no vested interest except curiosity.
My son is a pilot but not for AC.
I have watched and read both sides of the argument. Very good points on both sides by
some well versed and very intelligent people on both sides of the argument

I would think with all the time and thought put in to this argument by both sides,
by very intelligent people, that you people should be able to come up with a working arrangement
that would work for both sides.

There seems to be far to much time spent arguing who is right and who is wrong, and not enough discussion on how to solve the problem.

The only one winning right now is the Management not the pilots as a whole group.

Only an outsiders view.

Nicely said.

As an "outsider" it must be amusing to watch the tail wag the dog... round and round we go where we stop only the SCC knows.

Problem is one side told the other that their Momma was fat and the other side kicked sand in their face.

[FADEC]

Just to bring things up to date.

France uses 65 not 60 as one poster stated; it was the last country in the EU to comply with EU rules prohibiting Age Discrimination; this happened well before Kelly and vilven were re-instated.

The U.S. does not apply the Over/Under rule.

[Raymond Hall]

The U.S. does not apply the Over/Under rule.

A further clarification...

The U.S.A. regulations do not require the use of the Over-Under rule on U.S.A. domestic flights, even domestic flights that cross international boundaries, such as Seattle-Anchorage. The U.S. carriers may choose to not apply the rule on flights to and from Canada because Transport Canada will simply not enforce it--Transport Canada's position is that there should be no age restrictions on any flights for any airlines, period, because, according to its submissions to ICAO when ICAO was considering raising the maximum age for PICs from 60 to 65, age discrimination violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The U.S. carriers must comply with the Over-Under Rule on international flights to countries other than to Canada, unless specifically exempted by the country whose airspace they enter, but in most cases that is not an issue, I believe, because the U.S. carriers don't use Relief Pilots, they use Augment Pilots (fully qualified) on their overseas operations, so either the F/O or the Augment Pilot can be under age 60 if the PIC is over age 60.

[duranium]

LT Kaffee

With a post like that, I would suggest that you return to LT ing your kite or rowboat or whatever and let enlightened people do the writing. For an LT, you show absolutely no sound judgement, makes one wonder the selection criteria or did you also get that LT out of a cereal box.

I noticed that bait and switch routine of some of the above group, declaring that this was going to ruin the careers and limit the careers of AC pilots for the future....well, guess what, our careers haven't changed one iota since the latest CHRT ruling, can't say the same should the FP60 coalition prevail...


Your careers haven't changed one iota since the latest CHRT ruling ? You do not even have the moral fortitude to correct your post when you known that the aforementionned statement is utterly false, hence my statements above are confirmed.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Just out from the fly till ya die types ... a detailed analysis of BFOR, with a legal road map yet!

http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm

[43S/172E]

Maybe someone call tell your friend it is 27/07/2011 unless if he posted it in Kiwi Land

[Norwegianwood]

Maybe someone call tell your friend it is 27/07/2011 unless if he posted it in Kiwi Land

Would PVG do?

[777longhaul]

Good POV on PPRUNE.ORG forum on the BFOR issues, and the current CHRT BFOR ruling.

[777longhaul]

Please, keep in mind, that acpa, can not use the BFOR issue. This is the lynch pin of the entire process. acpa, must have AC back it, to fight this issue. What will acpa, give up......to keep AC fighting for them?

The recent BFOR ruling, used this information from AC.

Do you see any problems with it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by a330pilotcanada
[39] There is nothing in the record of the previous proceedings to suggest that the Tribunal, or the reviewing Judge, found that Captain Duke lacked credibility. Based on my review of his evidence, I am satisfied that he was a credible witness. Further, I find that his evidence is convincing and cogent.
======================================This quote is from the CHRT Judge Craig.
end


A factoid, POV from OverUnder:

Maybe the witness didn't lack credibility, but his evidence certainly did. For example, on page 1609 of the transcript (still posted on the ACPA web site) he admitted that all of his projections were based on nobody retiring in the next 10 years. He admitted that he assumed 100% of all pilots who were due to retire would stay on not only past age 60, but past age 65 and that to get the projected ages he simply added five years or ten years to the ages of all of the pilots currently at the top end of the equipment list.


When challenged as to if he did other "experiments" with more realistic numbers, such as 50% or 20% of 10% instead of 100%, he said he didn't. He said that he didn't know what the real percentage would be, so he just assumed it would be 100%! Consequently, all of the "experiments" that he did, from which he derived the cost assumptions used by the Tribunal to justify the undue hardship decision, were based on assumptions that had absolutely zero probability of ever occuring.

He even stated that he was certain that 100% would not stay past age 65. In other words, he admitted that his "evidence" was was not based on reality.

It would have been helpful if the Tribunal had considered that fact in its deliberation of the value of the entire testimony, but there is no reference in the decision to that admission or to any other statements made in Captain Duke's cross-examination.

Did the Tribunal even read the cross-examination testimony before accepting all of the speculations as fact? It would seem that fairness would demand some kind of recognition and balancing of the conficting testimony not only of this witness's testimony, but of the testimony of other witnesses that refuted many of his assertions. Nada.

I suppose that there is credibility, and then there is credibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by OverUnder; 2nd Aug 2011 at 12:36.

[FADEC]

Captain Dukes "Evidence" has zero credibility for anyone actually familiar with Case Study Methodology.

Duke made the classic error of deciding the answer, then fabricating the study to fit the predetermined conclusion. The amazing thing is that anyone believed him.

In testimony, Duke asserted that no pilot retires early; he also said that the average age at retirement was 59.2. Basic arithmetic shows him to be wrong, and he was caught by an actual expert who correctly deduced that pilots do retire early and using Dukes own figures showed that the average age of those doing so is in the 55 range.

Duke had also asserted that pilots only retire early when there is a "Package". Those present knew that to be incorrect, and he was ordered by the Tribunal to produce the lists of those taking early retirement in certain years. He had to produce the evidence showing he was wrong; double digit percentages of pilots retire early, with or without "Packages".

Duke produced a table of Retirement Ages at various Canadian Airlines. Only thing is, that the table was wrong. Duke claimed those were the answers provided to him by the Airlines. When the Tribunal issued Subpoenas to those Airlines, the answers provided showed Dukes' "Evidence" to be; you guessed it; Bogus.

As someone else said; "There is Credibilty, and then there is Credibility" Dukes' only credible evidence was that he is employed by Air Canada.

[Raymond Hall]

The Notices of Application for Judicial Review of the Tribunal's July 8th decision were filed in the Federal Court today, one Notice in respect of each applicant, George Vilven and Neil Kelly.

[sepia]

Can George be "hired" back into gdip? Or would he have to pass a medical to be rehired if he were to be reinstated?

[vic777]

Can George be "hired" back into gdip? Or would he have to pass a medical to be rehired if he were to be reinstated?

If he was wrongly "thrown out" of GDIP, he should be reinstated back into GDIP. Seems like a "no brainer".

[sepia]

In theory, because I have no idea about Vilven's medical or lack there of; If he doesn't have a medical, wouldn't he no longer qualify for a job as a pilot?

[Raymond Hall]

Can George be "hired" back into gdip? Or would he have to pass a medical to be rehired if he were to be reinstated?

George Vilven renewed his medical to Category 1 status over a month ago. He was awaiting re-assignment into B77 simulator training (availability is apparently very tight, right now, world-wide) when Air Canada pulled the plug on both him and Neil Kelly. They were both placed on a LOA without pay, effective August 1st. Their employment has not been terminated, so right now they are in a sort of limbo, with no pay, no pension income.

That status will obviously have to be addressed very soon, and I anticipate that it will, given the fact that an application for judicial review has now been filed in respect of the July 8th Tribunal decision.

[sepia]

Honest question for you Ray: At what point would you consider it "too many" sim sessions, and that someone should be fired for inability to qualify for the job?

[vic777]

At what point would you consider it "too many" sim sessions, and that someone should be fired for inability to qualify for the job?

I think we all defer to ACPA for guidance on this.

[ZBBYLW]

I think what you may see happen is the current idea of train to standard may go out the door with the FP60 group, if they get there way. Otherwise you would have a portion of the group in a state of continual sim! That is my best guess from an outsider's point of view.

[Raymond Hall]

Honest question...

Honest answer. My opinion, if I had one, would be irrelevant. Training, safety, licensing, competency, and the provisions in the collective agreement related to same have absolutely nothing to do with throwing someone, like myself, at the peak of my career at 60 years, 25 days old, onto the street (July, 2009). If anyone has any doubts about the robustness and vitality of some of us who are past 60, I would be more than pleased to go head to head with them either in the simulator or in the courtroom.

Several of the members of our group who are simulator instructors, some who are over age 65, are fully licensed and qualified to go back on the line today. All that they need is a route check. Ken Green, after being away from the simulator for over five years, just renewed his IFR and PPC on the A330, with remarkable results, apparently. So it is important, I believe, to keep the issues separate in our minds.

Social changes and legal changes frequently lead to changes in our collective agreement and in our relationship with each other and with the employer. It is a whole package, not one microscopic issue to be dealt with in isolation.

One of the more fortunate aspects of our entire set of legal proceedings, from June, 2006 to today is that competency was never an issue for the Tribunal to deal with, because it is dealt with by Transport Canada; it is a given and as such spared us getting into a total quagmire, redirecting our attention away from the issues that we could and must deal with.

Having said that, I will remind you that I was contacted a few months ago by a former Air Canada pilot who is now handling the licensing and certification for the B787 in Everett. He is licensed, fully qualified and current on most aircraft in the Boeing fleet, including the 787. He asked me about coming back to work at Air Canada, now that the age 60 cap has been lifted, in law. He is 73 years old.

[vic777]

I think what you may see happen is the current idea of train to standard may go out the door

I think the FP60 group would agree with you. The FP60 group has long argued that the licence should be renewed only on the basis of competency and physical fitness. There should be a competency and health requirement. Maybe a stress test on a treadmill. Some Pilots would then correctly fly into their eighties, others would be "retired" at thirty-five. To suggest that the rules would magically change on your Sixtieth birthday implies that you haven't been following the debate.

[Thirteentennorth]

If he was wrongly "thrown out" of GDIP, he should be reinstated back into GDIP. Seems like a "no brainer".

I may be mistaken but at the moment there is NO GDIP past age 60. The GDIP plan terminates at Age 60. So George could not have been thrown out of a plan that does not exist...for him. Speaking under correction. Perhaps Raymond can verify my info.

[turbo-beaver]

Iain:

you are correct. There is no provision for GIDIP after age 60. Now, if you had a couple hundred sick days you might be able to hang in there a little longer.
It is the same at my present job driving trains......no disability after age 65. If I were to get sick now.......I would get 26 weeks of wage indemnity , or as we call it, short term disability, and then put out to pasture. You could probably purchase insurance but the cost would be too high.
Interesting though,when I approached age 65, my company wrote me a letter asking me if I wanted to retire or stay. End of story. My choice. No union intervention or protracted dispute.
Some days,I drive around with over 500 passengers when I have to go rescue a train that has broken down. No co-pilot. And I don't even have to have a medical every 6 months. Believe it or not, bottle to the throttle is only 4 hours as well. Weird.
I'll stay until I can afford that new Martin D-28 and the sailboat to put it on.

All the best,
K

[Thirteentennorth]

Hey Ken, ya ole' Bandit!
A D-28? I can only dream!
Glad to hear that you're keeping well and can still ace an A330 PPC!
Take care Old Friend.
Iain.