Can the illegal acts still be condoned?

[morefun]

Martin, anyone can get sick at any time so it doesn't really make any differance if he or she is 60, 64 or 34...same same...

[Raymond Hall]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this. As has already previously been pointed out on this Board, ACPA is basically out of the picture, being relegated to merely being an observer. It doesn't matter what ACPA wants, the Company will not and would never have acquiesced.

With respect, Martin, your proposition is not consistent with the facts. Air Canada is clearly not the driver of this train. The driver is ACPA. Case in point. Air Canada has not only reinstated employees from all the other major unions, but it has mediated settlements of Flight Attendants over age 65, allowing them to return to work. Also, it isn’t Air Canada that refuses to file grievances on behalf of its pilots who object to mandatory retirement. Its hands are clean on that issue.

It is ACPA that is pursuing this on the basis of protecting the career progression of the younger pilots, for as long as it can, until the music stops and we see which pilots are still in the chairs. As I see it, Air Canada is entirely neutral on that issue. It doesn't care which of its pilots fly its planes because it pays the same amount to have them flown, regardless. Air Canada's key issue, from my understanding of the arguments put forth, is its ability to operate its flights, given the constraints imposed by the ICAO restrictions. Hence, its entrenched and determined defence on the BFOR issue.

The $300,000 per pilot is not a cost savings; rather it is a delay in cost.

That is not correct, either. Any reduction in the churning of pilots from position to position provides a substantial net reduction in the total number of courses ultimately taken. While not all of the $300,000 deferred training costs is ultimately saved, a major portion of it is, and 100% of it is saved in the current fiscal year, which, for a company on a short financial leash, that is very, very significant. The recovery of the loss in productivity alone is a permanent saving, because there is one fewer iterations of training, and these multiple pilots are contributing to the bottom line rather than detracting from the bottom line.

[Martin Tamme]

Air Canada has not only reinstated employees from all the other major unions, but it has mediated settlements of Flight Attendants over age 65, allowing them to return to work.

Yes, and if that flight attendant decides to quit tomorrow, you would immediately be able to replace her the following day. There is no long-range planning required for Flight Attendant replacement. Nevertheless, you can't replace a B777 Captain overnight. It is a fact that under our seniority-based system, it would take the Company over a year of planning to replace him.

Planning bears a cost. You don't need planning to replace a flight attendant, but you do need it to replace a pilot, unless of course he were at the bottom of the seniority list. If Neil Kelly & George Vilven had accepted the Company's offer to being EMJ F/Os while getting the maximum pay for the equipment/position they could have held (i.e. B777 F/O), this issue would have been solved a long time ago. Please don't go around blaming Air Canada that they are not being reasonable... they just want to protect their operation without creating undue financial hardship.

[Raymond Hall]

[Yes, and if that flight attendant decides to quit tomorrow, you would be able to immediately replace her the following day. There is no long-range planning required for Flight Attendant replacement. Nevertheless, you can't replace a B777 Captain overnight. It is a fact that under our seniority-based system, it would take the Company over a year of planning to replace him.

Planning bears a cost. You don't need planning to replace a flight attendant, but you do need it to replace a pilot, unless of course he were at the bottom of the seniority list.

That issue was considered in evidence and reflected upon, then dismissed by the Federal Court. Air Canada's witness agreed in testimony that there are means of working around these planning issues, including the potential of requiring a minimum notice period.

Federal Court Decision 2011 FC 120, issued February 3, 2011

[433] Captain Duke testified that if mandatory retirement were abolished at Air Canada, the airline could be caught short if an over-60 pilot suddenly decided to retire, as nothing in the collective agreement requires pilots to give advance notice of when they intend to retire. According to Captain Duke, an unanticipated retirement could have a serious impact on the company’s operations.

[434] Captain Duke conceded that this would not be an issue if Air Canada and ACPA were to agree to a requirement that pilots give a year’s advance notice of their intention to retire, or if the Tribunal were to make such an order. While observing that such a requirement could potentially be difficult to enforce as it is hard to force someone to work if they do not want to, Captain Duke acknowledged that economic incentives could be created to encourage the giving of timely notice.

[435] Air Canada does not take issue with this assertion, but says that the Tribunal erred in failing to order that such a provision be included in the Air Canada/ACPA collective agreement. I am not persuaded that the Tribunal erred as alleged.

Air Canada already deals with that problem every month. Pilots die on motorcycles, fall of rooves of houses, fall over ice cliffs while skiing and contract serious illnesses that preclude them from reporting to work, sometimes forever. Not all of these occurrences allow the employer to plan for them, but that is why it has some contingencies built into its collective agreement. It can't negotiate a provision that pilots must give adequate notice to the employer prior to getting killed in on a motorcycle, so it works around the problem. This problem is no reason to arbitrarily terminate the employment of all pilots on the basis of age discrimination. At least, that's what the court said.

[vic777]

That is not correct, either. Any reduction in the churning of pilots from position to position provides a substantial net reduction in the total number of courses ultimately taken.

Good point, and if career averages went from Twenty years to Forty years, that would mean half the number of courses, forever! ACPA should pay an Actuary to get them some facts to take into bargaining. These tremendous windfall savings should be passed onto the Pilots. You'd think that the AC Executives would be up to speed on this. But I guess they know these savings will be realized but never have to be shown on the books. They can say the increase in profits is due to good management.

[vic777]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this.

Actually I think you're incorrect. Air Canada desperately tried to get out of this. Remember when they told ACPA, " If you don't pay half we're bailing". They were looking for a way out. They were probably just as shocked as the ACPA dues payers when ACPA decided to roll the dice with the members money to advance the Senior ACPA Elite.

[Martin Tamme]

Martin, anyone can get sick at any time so it doesn't really make any differance if he or she is 60, 64 or 34...same same...

Yes and the Company has a statistic for this: They carry an additional 7% number of pilots on each equipment/position roster. They could easily figure out the statistic as to how many pilots want to retire at or before 60, but it would be impossible to determine of those who want to remain past 60 as to when they want to go. They would have to carry an additional percentage of pilots, but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough. In either case, it bears a cost, which would create undue financial hardship.

[Martin Tamme]

Actually I think you're incorrect. Air Canada desperately tried to get out of this. Remember when they told ACPA, " If you don't pay half we're bailing". They were looking for a way out.

Then what's preventing the Company from pulling the plug now? Please don't say that they are trying to appease ACPA. The fact that they recently filed a "notice of dispute" clearly indicates that there is no honeymoon. Air Canada doesn't care about ACPA; Air Canada only does what is in Air Canada's best interest.

[vic777]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

[vic777]

Then what's preventing the Company from pulling the plug now?

Who is the AC Executive who started this fiasco? Maybe he can't admit failure, for whatever reason.

[accumulous]

They would have to carry an additional percentage of pilots, but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough. In either case, it bears a cost, which would create undue financial hardship.

Too simple – no data, no financial hardship. Nobody knows when anybody will quit, never mind the pilots sitting in the left seat of a B787 at the top. You financial hardship data has to cover ALL 3000 pilots compared to returning pilots and it can’t, so your argument is void. You can't 'make up' statistics in court. A bunch of happy B787 Captains could be the most stable lot the Corp has ever seen. The only data that exists is with all the pilots wanting leaves, going on GDIP, quitting for other carriers, getting fired, etc. There’s the hardship, not with senior B787 pilots wanting to stay. That’s a red herring and there are likely about a hundred different statistical ways to color it red.

So there are no real cost savings; rather, all you have is a "delay in costs". It could be one Quarter, one year, or maybe even 5+ years, but in the end a cost will be borne. The problem is that if a pilot gets to choose when to retire, Air Canada will not know when they would have to bear that cost: Is it going to be this month, this year, or the year thereafter? How do make an annual budget if you can't plan your fixed costs accordingly?

Doesn’t take a lot of rocket science to discover that if 3000 pilots go past 60, you get mega-millions on TODAY’S plate to leverage against THIS contract.

So everybody gets a raise in pay, and the chance to collect it much longer, and a bigger pension.

ACPA of course, in the Alternate Universe, is headed in the opposite direction toward a black hole earmarked just for them. Standard operating procedure for us. No speed, no altitude, no ideas. The back side of the power band. Einstein said space is curved. Our space is seriously warped.

In terms of retirements, none of the 25,000 employees at Air Canada have to give any substantial notice whatsoever. You can walk in tomorrow and plunk your wings on the oak desk. Every single B777 pilot can walk in tomorrow and plunk the wings on the oak desk.

That scenario might very well happen if it appears AC is heading into a serious round of CCAA. You want to get out now and be first on somebody else’s seniority list or you want to get out last and be last on somebody else’s seniority list? Count the number of Canadian airlines where that already played out.

In terms of projected retirements, what might likely transpire is a simple rule of providing a more suitable advance notice of intended retirement. Note that it would also be in the Corp’s best interest to apply that all the way across the list from bottom to top. However, that still does not prevent you or anybody from strolling in and plunking the wings on the oak desk first thing tomorrow morning, regardless of your seniority.

The guys and gals who will be continuing past December, 2012, and the returning pilots, will easily save the Company their half of the litigation tab, and a massive whack more. ACPA’s half would have to be negotiated. Good luck with that one. Somebody suggested AC management was inept? Au contraire.

The BFOR issue was lost in fairly spectacular fashion in the Thwaites case, following the SCC explicit guidelines. If anybody thinks they can overturn that one and additionally be the only outfit on the continent to have an issue with BFOR, best of luck on that one too. That 16kg of BFOR paper you mentioned cost about 50 bucks at Future Shop, including the ink cartridge, and it’s a smartly inexpensive way to run us out of time to leverage anything out of the gains on the end of mandatory retirement. It’s probably the high cabin altitude or something that’s doing this to us.

[Understated]

Air Canada doesn't care about ACPA; Air Canada only does what is in Air Canada's best interest.

Is ACPA any different?

Probably not, save for the fact that it makes its current decisions on the basis of a vote that was taken over five years ago, where the question essentially was, "Does the majority want us to discriminate on the basis of age, or not discriminate on the basis of age?"

"If you want to discriminate on the basis of age, we can keep this game running for up to seven years. That's how long it will take to get to the Supreme Court of Canada, and by that time you will have bounced hundreds more off the seniority list, will little probability of the majority of them ever coming back to interfere with your career progression."

Isn't that the way in happened, Martin? You were there. You got the briefing. You heard it with your own ears. And the prediction of seven years? Deadly accurate. You pay good money and you get what you pay for, I guess.

[Martin Tamme]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

[accumulous]

but no one would know the correct percentage - either they will be carrying too many pilots on the roster or not enough.

Actually all they have to do is ask the Airlines to the South what the numbers are, and after two to three years they'll have their own statistics, anyway. Your point is not valid.

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

That's correct, up north here we will have relatively fewer guys leaving as we have no age restrictions whatsoever, and there is no BFOR for F/O's over 65, hence we will have relatively more stability on the cost side of the equation. If you're left seat on the B787, a couple of quick Sim sessions and you slide over to the right. If the PIC ICAO rule gets lifted then you carry on in the left seat. One example of that is a Canadian North B737 Captain who recently retired at 72, as they were flying domestic blocks.

[vic777]

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

Martin, it's like pulling teeth, ya gotta lighten up. The rock solid statistics would become known very soon. Here's how you do it, you start off with the same percentage, if that's too much you lower it, if it's not enough, you raise it. After a few years you're dead on. Not Rocket Science. Just windfall gains for AC.

[accumulous]

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

Martin, it's like pulling teeth, ya gotta lighten up. The rock solid statistics would become known very soon.

Here's the stats as reported by the American Airines Union in May 2011, that's 6 months ago.


• Average age of AA pilots: 51.6 years

• Average age AA Captains: 54.4 years

• Average age AA First Officers: 49.3 years

• AA pilots under 40 years old: 83

• AA pilots over 60 years old: 560

There are 7 times as many pilots over 60 as there are under 40.

It wouldn't be much of a stretch at AC, WestJet, et al, to either duplicate those ratios or exceed them within 2 to 3 years. Now there's a cost savings.

[Raymond Hall]

That's correct, up north here we will have relatively fewer guys leaving as we have no age restrictions whatsoever, and there is no BFOR for F/O's over 65, hence we will have relatively more stability on the cost side of the equation. If you're left seat on the B787, a couple of quick Sim sessions and you slide over to the right. If the PIC ICAO rule gets lifted then you carry on in the left seat. One example of that is a Canadian North B737 Captain who recently retired at 72, as they were flying domestic blocks.

Yes, and I heard yesterday that they just hired a 65 year old Captain to replace him.

[Understated]

No, in the States the majority will be going by Age 65. They still have a limit, we don't. Proof is that George & Neil were over 65 when they came back. That wouldn't have been allowed down South.

So if the legislated limit were 99, does that mean that the majority would leave at age 99? Your logic suffers from fallacious reasoning. Moving the max age to 65 has almost no impact on your ability to predict when pilots will actually choose to retire. At present, the majority go on the first day that they can leave without incurring a penalty on receiving a full pension. For most, that is age 60, even if they don't make max years of service.

Raising the age to 65 does nothing to increase the predictability. Most pilots who desire to stay beyond age 60 plan to stay only one to two years beyond age 60. Many are just short of a full 35 years of service credit. Others would be lost without their employment, so they may stay indefinitely. Still others cannot afford to retire at any age, for a whole slew of reasons. One way to find out when those who intend to say beyond age 60 is to do the obvious: ask them! Do you intend to stay beyond age 60? If so, how long?

Neither ACPA nor Air Canada has done that because both are still in denial, and have no interest in condoning any perception that they may actually have to deal with that eventuality. Well, guess what? Mark December, 2012 on your calendar. The world just changed.

The predictability issue is a non-issue, in age discrimination jurisprudence, for many more reasons than the above. Just read some of the literature on it. In essence, it is but one more red herring that those who believe in age discrimination at any cost can raise to purportedly justify their fear mongering.

[SilentMajority]

Air Canada has not only reinstated employees from all the other major unions, but it has mediated settlements of Flight Attendants over age 65, allowing them to return to work.

Raymond,

Can you expand on the Flight Attendant's mediated settlements? Wasn't aware that the F/A's (CUPE) have also been successful in reinstatement?

[SilentMajority]

...but it doesn't matter what ACPA (meaning "we") decide, because Air Canada is determined to fight this. As has already previously been pointed out on this Board, ACPA is basically out of the picture, being relegated to merely being an observer. It doesn't matter what ACPA wants, the Company will not and would never have acquiesced.

So Martin.....are you saying that if the Fly Past group is successful with the CIRB re-consideration that is supposedly due to be released shortly....that ACPA will willingly support a grievance......as have the IAM, CAW and now apparently CUPE?

[Raymond Hall]

Can you expand on the Flight Attendant's mediated settlements? Wasn't aware that the F/A's (CUPE) have also been successful in reinstatement?

I do not have any direct information. My information is hearsay. Bona fide hearsay, but I have been informed by a reliable source that some flight attendants who are over the "normal age of retirement for individuals performing similar work," i.e. age 65, and who have filed complaints with the CHRC, have entered into settlement arrangements with their employer. Further, the employer has apparently agreed to allow them to return to work, on conditions. The contents of the settlement arrangements have not been made public, and I do not know if the arrangement will ever be made public. But one of the provisions, obviously, is that they have been offered the opportunity to return to work in their prior capacity with their accrued seniority and all of the rights that that entails, and that some of them (I do not know the number, if any) have accepted that settlement arrangement and may have actually returned to work.

I stand to be corrected on any of the above.

I do know that there is an arbitration scheduled to be held (or that has already been held but the decision has not yet been rendered) between CUPE (the union representing the Flight Attendants) and Air Canada, regarding the same issues that were put to the arbitrator by the IAMAW (the union representing the ground workers and mechanics) and the CAW (the union representing the sales and reservation staff and airport customer service agents), namely temporary reinstatement pending the outcome of the Vilven-Kelly constitutional challenge of Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA that is currently before the courts.

[SilentMajority]

Raymond...thanks for this information.
So that would now be the IAM, CAW and CUPE supporting employee grievances regarding forced retirement.

[Rockie]

Why is this still being debated as if the outcome has yet to be determined? On December 15th, 2012 mandatory retirement ceases to exist at Air Canada unless reason suddenly prevails and it occurs sooner. But it will not occur later.

If Air Canada wants to impose any kind of retirement age after that date they will have to prove a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement for it. Their attempt at proving undue hardship after age 60 was sliced, diced, and handed back to them on a platter with a giant "REJECTED" stamp on it. They have yet to attempt age 65.

Except for the cases before the CHRT the debate has ended. Time to get on with it.

[Takeoff OK]

ACPA screwed the pooch on this. They should have looked to the south to see where the winds were blowing, and used 60+ as a bargaining chip. Instead, they fought an obviously hopeless battle, and lost the farm.

Your old MEC should be strung up from the nearest tree for all that they have done; their names should NEVER be forgotten.

Hopefully the new guys will do a better job.

Anyway, time to move on.

IT

IS

OVER.

[Sea2Sky]

Why does everybody assume pilots between 60 and 65 won't upgrade? Take those upgrade costs, the trickle down cost that ensues, PLUS the delayed cost of replacing them in 5 years PLUS a second domino training effect that follows.

Also, I'd be curious at to how many employees will now max out their pensions with an additional 5 years of service tacked on. How does this save money??

Martin is dead on with the fact that these training costs are only being pushed back, and pushed to a time where training costs are likely to be proportionally much higher than now (assuming a 5 yr increase to oil proportionally much steeper than over the past 5 yrs).