Can the illegal acts still be condoned?

[Takeoff OK]

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??

It saves money because the average long haul pilot will now die 5 years into their pension as opposed to 10. Plain and simple. It will save money.

[777longhaul]

Ah, yes, if....there were NO pilots, and No airplanes to deal with, what a great airline this would be....think of the money we could make.

[TheStig]

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'd hope so because that information was almost entirely speculative. While the two cases both fall into the fruit category they are apples and oranges, as Martin pointed out.

What is interesting about the Flight Attendants CHRC complaint is how quietly it was settled, and how the two sides were able to come to an agreement. If the Flypast60 group was willing to bend even just the slightest amount this could have been resolved.

Why wouldn't AC be willing to let pilots fly as long as they wish (if they could negotiate the terms of the contract in which they do so with ACPA)? Not being forced into retirement may be a human right, but being a 777 Captain at Air Canada is a negotiated benefit inherited through seniority.

Rockie, 777longhaul, and Raymond bring up some very valid points and good on Martin and yycflyguy for coming on here and countering.

[vic777]

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).

Too bad the former ACPA Elite didn't set aside their own lust for career advancement and had hired an Actuary to explain to them how many hundreds of millions of dollars would silently flow to AC when FlyPast60 becomes a reality. AC will never show on the books where these windfall gains come from. ACPA could still hire an Actuary so at least they'd know what they're talking about. Maybe they should negotiate, that in light of the massive windfall gains, ACPA should be let off the hook for the settlements and court costs. Time for ACPA to get pro active, ACPA has cost us millions but is not totally dead yet.

[Raymond Hall]

If the Flypast60 group was willing to bend even just the slightest amount this could have been resolved.

I have made this point before, but it bears repeating. The "Fly Past 60 group," as you refer to it, has no legal status to do anything. It cannot negotiate anything, and in particular, it cannot "settle" anything, particularly anything that would involve any waiver of statutory rights. The group was formed for one purpose, and one purpose only. That purpose was to allow those who are not being represented by their own union, for obvious reasons, to share the cost and effort of providing a legal challenge to the alleged infringement of the legal rights to which they are entitled under the human rights laws of this country, including freedom from discrimination on the basis of age.

As you know, the cost of litigation is substantial. Prohibitive, in fact, to most individuals. The cost of the litigation to date has exceeded $1 million for each of the three parties. I suspect that both ACPA and Air Canada have paid substantially more than we have, to get where we are today. That cost is obviously prohibitive to any single individual pilot, and without the coordination and joint contribution of the almost 200 who are members, there would be no challenge to the actions of the employer and the union.

That aside, neither I nor anyone else has any right to "negotiate away" anyone's right to be free from age discrimination. Even if we did "negotiate" anything, some other individual could come along right behind us and demand that his or her rights be honoured, regardless of whatever settlement we had arranged.

So the issue is not one of "bending." Rather, it is one of dealing with the legal realities. If we have erred, it is that we have been too forthright. Although we underestimated the ability of our adversaries to drag this litigation out for over half a decade, the statements that we made in 2006 were dead on. Namely, mandatory retirement in Canada is coming to an end, and it would behoove ACPA to embrace the change rather than fighting it, in order to firstly capture at least some of the windfall about to be bestowed upon the employer as a result of the change, and secondly, to avoid the costly disruption to our own solidarity as a group and to avoid the potential monetary damages that are likely to result by a failure to recognize the legal consequences of fighting the inevitable.

Were we wrong? You be the judge.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

But it's funny how your point directly contradicts several of your cabal. They keep making the point that if only ACPA had negotiated this, all would be water under the bridge...not likely....had the parties negotiated an extension to age 65 or the like in the ACPA pension plan/Collective Agreement, I am certain it would have taken 3 nanoseconds past the day that someone at AC turned 65 before a CHRT complaint was filed about age discrimination.

Second, if you or your group were interested in solidarity, then look in the mirror, your group has done more to split the ACPA group than any other single issue to date. The self-serving sentiment in this statement is almost funny.

[vic777]

I am certain it would have taken 3 nanoseconds past the day that someone at AC turned 65 before a CHRT complaint was filed about age discrimination.

At least you're beginning to understand what Age Discrimination is ....

[Rockie]

But it's funny how your point directly contradicts several of your cabal. They keep making the point that if only ACPA had negotiated this, all would be water under the bridge...not likely....had the parties negotiated an extension to age 65 or the like in the ACPA pension plan/Collective Agreement, I am certain it would have taken 3 nanoseconds past the day that someone at AC turned 65 before a CHRT complaint was filed about age discrimination.

Incorrect. The point people have been making is that if ACPA had paid attention to what was occurring in Canada they could have managed the inevitable to their best advantage and a human rights challenge would not have been necessary. They chose not to do that making the CHRA challenge necessary and equally as inevitable, which brings us directly to your next incorrect point:

your group has done more to split the ACPA group than any other single issue to date.

ACPA's stubbornly misguided and incompetent decision to maintain a practice that the rest of the country clearly considers discriminatory is what split this group. Every other union in the company figured it out correctly as did every provincial, territorial and now the federal government. How long did you think we could live in our bubble before somebody popped it?

Professional pilots are supposed to be pragmatic realists specifically trained to interpret and correctly deal with highly technical and dynamic situations. We didn't show any of that ability in this regard did we?

[Morry Bund]

...if you or your group were interested in solidarity, then look in the mirror, your group has done more to split the ACPA group than any other single issue to date. The self-serving sentiment in this statement is almost funny.

Self-serving? Since when does any potential personal interest in an outcome get precedence over a factual and realistic prediction about a impending onslaught? How self-serving is it to suggest that we embrace the change together, to our mutual benefit? It might have been self-serving, if we had a unilateral ability to make the change. As it stands now, the facts are evidence of the contrary. Currently we have no pilots over age 60, working for Air Canada, after five years of litigation. But the government has just changed that ball game, in line with our prediction five years ago.

You hold us responsible for splitting the ACPA group? Laughable. ACPA's refusal to accept reality differs little from the refusal of the former leaders of Arab nations to look out their window and see the changing reality around them, as witnessed recently in Egypt and Libya, and soon to be witnessed in Syria.

Here's a song for you:

The phrase "It Takes Two to Tango" was made popular as a result of a 1952 song by Al Hoffman and Dick Manning named Takes Two to Tango. Two versions of the song appeared that year, one by Pearl Bailey and the other by Louis Armstrong.

You can stare at the moon by yourself,
take a laugh like a loon by yourself,
spend a lot, go to pot on your own,
there's a lot of things that you can do alone!

But listen here...

Takes two to tango, two to tango

[vic777]

Here's a song for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96uOpfGowNk

[TheStig]

If the Flypast60 group was willing to bend even just the slightest amount this could have been resolved.

I have made this point before, but it bears repeating. The "Fly Past 60 group," as you refer to it, has no legal status to do anything. It cannot negotiate anything, and in particular, it cannot "settle" anything, particularly anything that would involve any waiver of statutory rights. The group was formed for one purpose, and one purpose only. That purpose was to allow those who are not being represented by their own union, for obvious reasons, to share the cost and effort of providing a legal challenge to the alleged infringement of the legal rights to which they are entitled under the human rights laws of this country, including freedom from discrimination on the basis of age.

Agreed, the FP60 group is not a bargaining agent, but it's members can accept offers made to them by Air Canada. Such as the offer for Mr.'s Vilven and Kelly to return as EMJ FO's.

What is so difficult to get past is the fact the age discrimination is different then race, gender, or religious discrimination is because everyone ages. Maybe Air Canada needs to start hiring it's pilots on a 20 or 30 year contract (for example), this takes age out of the picture? However, that would have to be a "from this point going forward" type of contract. Certainly doesn't fix this mess...

Can anyone on this forum comment on the contract Cathay Pacific's Canadian based pilots operate under? It's my understanding that they've recently moved their retirement age from 55 to 60, with pilots staying past 55 taking a paycut.

[Raymond Hall]

Agreed, the FP60 group is not a bargaining agent, but it's members can accept offers made to them by Air Canada. Such as the offer for Mr.'s Vilven and Kelly to return as EMJ FO's..

Part of the problem of being on the outside looking in that it is impossible to get the whole picture. The offer to Vilven and Kelly to accept re-employment on the Embraer as First Officers was only one piece of the offer, and like most offers, its was an "all or nothing" package. It was the whole package that had to be considered, and it was the whole package that was rejected, for a number of reasons, including conditions in the offer that were not made public.

What is so difficult to get past is the fact the age discrimination is different then race, gender, or religious discrimination is because everyone ages.

Show me where it says that in the Canadian Human Rights Act, please.

[Rockie]

What is so difficult to get past is the fact the age discrimination is different then race, gender, or religious discrimination is because everyone ages.

That is the entire crux of the problem. Because Air Canada pilots don't consider mandatory retirement age discriminatory they think the rest of Canada should come around to their way of thinking.

That will never, and was never going to happen.

[TheStig]

What is so difficult to get past is the fact the age discrimination is different then race, gender, or religious discrimination is because everyone ages.

Show me where it says that in the Canadian Human Rights Act, please.

It's right under the section that covers about ones right to be a 777 Captain as long as they want to be. The issue (for ACPA's membership) isn't staying past 60, it's not vacating senior positions. From my personal perspective (retirees I've met, such as sim instructors, long time family friends, etc). Most retirees are excellent individuals, and would be/are a treat to work with. This isn't personal, but there is too much career advancement on the table for ACPA's members to not fight this as long as possible. The $1,000,000 you've quoted is peanuts compared to the additional income on the table.

Rockie, it's not just Air Canada pilots that can't look at things from any other perspective. To use your term, "the crux of the problem" is creating a new contract which:
-Has no mandatory retirement
-Has no reference to a pilots age, other than compliance with current ICAO standards
-Does not inhibit the current career progression of any Air Canada Pilot

[Rockie]

It's right under the section that covers about ones right to be a 777 Captain as long as they want to be. The issue (for ACPA's membership) isn't staying past 60, it's not vacating senior positions. From my personal perspective (retirees I've met, such as sim planners, long time family friends, etc). Most retirees are excellent individuals, and would be/are a treat to work with. This isn't personal, but there is too much career advancement on the table for ACPA's members to not fight this as long as possible. The $1,000,000 you've quoted is peanuts compared to the additional income on the table.

Every pilot will now have the option of working longer if they wish which will not only increase their total career income, but will increase their pensionable years of service as well. It's a win/win for everybody except people who want it now instead of later, and think people ahead of them owe them their jobs. Lack of foresight.

Rockie, it's not just Air Canada pilots that can't look at things from any other perspective. To use your term, "the crux of the problem" is creating a new contract which:
-Has no mandatory retirement
-Has no reference to a pilots age, other than compliance with current ICAO standards
-Does not inhibit the current career progression of any Air Canada Pilot

A contract which has no retirement age is simple to do. A contract that has no reference to pilot age is simple to do. A contract that doesn't inhibit current career progression of any Air Canada pilot already exists and will exist afterward.

This reminds me of the educational awareness program employers were forced to provide on sexual and other forms of harrassment. It never used to be considered a problem either, but employers eventually found themselves in hot water for failing to protect employees from it. I can see the same thing happening with this issue.

Air Canada had better get up to speed before things get much worse for them.

[Martin Tamme]

Part of the problem of being on the outside looking in that it is impossible to get the whole picture. The offer to Vilven and Kelly to accept re-employment on the Embraer as First Officers was only one piece of the offer, and like most offers, its was an "all or nothing" package. It was the whole package that had to be considered, and it was the whole package that was rejected, for a number of reasons, including conditions in the offer that were not made public.

So what were the conditions that made the offer impossible to accept?

Let's look at this from an outside view. George Vilven & Neil Kelly complained that it is a Human Rights violation for having their employment as pilots terminated on the basis of their age. Air Canada's main, and most probably only issue, is the cost of pilot replacement when one decides to retire (the other issue is scheduling over 60 with under 60 pilots). It is not so much the dollar amount associated with pilot replacement; rather it is the timeline, or planning, that is required in replacing a retiring pilot. Negotiations is the art of looking at everyone's interests as opposed to solely looking at their positions (this is taken from the book "Getting to Yes", a book on how to negotiate).

It takes the Comany well over a year to replace a B777 Captain due to the multiple courses that are involved in the process under our Seniority-based system. According to Captain Duke, it takes -on average- 7 courses. From experience we know it takes a minimum of 2 months per course, which means that Air Canada would need 14 months of advance notice to begin the preparations at replacing an exiting pilot. Generally, over 90% of the pilots exit at Age 60 each year.

Air Canada's main issue is knowing when a pilot leaves, so that they can make the preparations. Had the age limit simply been raised from 60 to 65, as was recently done in the States, Air Canada would have thrown in the towel a long time ago, because the fixed exit point remains. Granted, it may not be 90% of the pilots anymore; however, it would be easy to come up with the statistic. Nevertheless, not having ANY fixed date causes uncertainty that cannot be planned for.

So what does Air Canada do? They present an offer of settlement that would ensure that their interests, not position, are adequately protected: The timeframe associated with replacing a pilot. Although the offer was only extended to George Vilven & Neil Kelly, they would have extended it to anyone else who decided they wanted to remain. They offered the plaintiffs a deal which would see no loss in income, receive the same amount hours of work every month, and most probably receive the same amount of time off during the month.

The plaintiffs refused. To an outsider, it becomes apparent that to these plaintiffs, the issue is not about the right to continue flying past 60; rather it is about the right to determine the associated working conditions, which is a right that is enshrined within a Collective Agreement and not the Human Rights Act. Let's face it, this fight is not about allowing pilots to work past 60; rather it is about allowing pilots past 60 to fly a widebody overseas. Seniority, or working conditions associated with seniority, is not a Human Rights issue. Seniority (and all the benefits associated with it) is a clause -like all other articles- enshrined within a Collective Agreement; an agreement between an employer and a union.

If this were strickly about age discrimination as per the Human Rights Act, Air Canada would have met its obligations when it offered the settlement: The right to continue working as a pilot; earning the same amount of income; working the same amount of hours; and receiving the same amount of time off. I'm just calling it what it is.


P.S. From what I've read from Rockie's posts, he is different: He is a man of principle. I believe that Rockie would have accepted these conditions. For him, this is not about the right to fly to exotic destinations; rather it is about one's right to continue having employment past a certain age. Would Rockie have accepted EMJ Captain until Age 65 and then either EMJ F/O or widebody RP after that, as long as all other conditions remained the same? I think so.

[accumulous]

Air Canada's main issue is knowing when a pilot leaves, so that they can make the preparations. Had the age limit simply been raised from 60 to 65, as was recently done in the States, Air Canada would have thrown in the towel a long time ago, because the fixed exit point remains. Granted, it may not be 90% of the pilots anymore; however, it would be easy to come up with the statistic. Nevertheless, not having ANY fixed date causes uncertainty that cannot be planned for.

So what does Air Canada do? They present an offer of settlement that would ensure that their interests, not position, are adequately protected: The timeframe associated with replacing a pilot. Although the offer was only extended to George Vilven & Neil Kelly, they would have extended it to anyone else who decided they wanted to remain. They offered the plaintiffs a deal which would see no loss in income, receive the same amount hours of work every month, and most probably receive the same amount of time off during the month.

The plaintiffs refused. To an outsider, it becomes apparent that to these plaintiffs, the issue is not about the right to continue flying past 60; rather it is about the right to determine the associated working conditions, which is a right that is enshrined within a Collective Agreement and not the Human Rights Act. Let's face it, this fight is not about allowing pilots to work past 60; rather it is about allowing pilots past 60 to fly a widebody overseas. Seniority, or working conditions associated with seniority, is not a Human Rights issue. Seniority (and all the benefits associated with it) is a clause -like all other articles- enshrined within a Collective Agreement; an agreement between an employer and a union.

For starters that’s stuff is pretty much all dead wrong. The awards are always reinstatement to original positions, original relative seniority, etc., etc. Go to the appropriate websites and read the Rulings. They’re arriving every month. Discrimination takes place, the rulings take care of that as if it never happened. That’s how it’s done. So bargaining with the pilots who engaged the case? Nope.

Retirement predictability? As stated by AC, simply re-write the notice rules. It’s not an issue. It’s just another red herring attempt to try to get up the list. There are more red herrings than you can count. And they’ve been addressed. One thing that has always defined this gong show is the red herring approach to eradicating or compromising senior pilots. It won’t work.

What we’ve got right now is a TA1 that was tossed, along with the impeachment of ACPA Execs including the MEC Chairman, the simultaneous resignation of the TA1 Negotiating Committee, along with the resignation of the Age 60 Committee, erstwhile Strategic Alternatives and a thing called Project Ultra.

Shortly after the wreckage was from all that was cleared, Parliament and the Federal Court re-sodded the playing field.

BFOR was fried to a crisp in Thwaites et al via SCC guidelines. Good luck changing that one.

Parliament’s House of Commons, Senate and Governor General, fried ACPA’s Geocentric Theory of the Universe, and the Federal Court has weighed in heavily on the rest of it. Canada’s biggest discrimination gong show is about to hear the last gong.

Several Rocket Scientists have claimed that there is no potential cash leverage on the table with the end of mandatory retirement. You’re looking in the wrong book. It’s called Arithmetic. The windfall is there in spades.

Slight difficulty. AC is the dealer. A group of pilots wants cash AND seniority numbers. All it takes is 16 kg of hollow BFOR flotsam to keep those windfall chips off the table. Just dangle a seniority number on a stick in front of an AC pilot and you can get pretty much anything you want, even when the sky is falling. TA2 should be a thing of beauty, not so much from what’s in it, but how it gets there.

Anybody expecting a raise?

[Rotten Apple #1]

Martin, I am an outsider (to this issue) and I don't share your characterization of the issues involved. I would be careful about portraying things as an outsider when you aren't one.

Cheers

(John Swallow)

[Martin Tamme]

The awards are always reinstatement to original positions, original relative seniority, etc., etc.

And that's where a lot of these awards have it wrong, and the reason as to why they will keep on getting appealed. Since when is seniority a human rights issue?

Under our seniority-based system, position is the status and aircraft one holds. Under the Labour Code, it is something completely different: It is the income, responsiblities and working conditions (hours worked & time off) that are associated with a position. All the rest are just job titles: For instance, if in your previous job you were the Manager of Documentation and you now find yourself post Age 65 as the Manager of Paper Shuffling, is it really a Human Rights violation? As long as your income, responsiblities, hours worked and time off all remain the same, you hold the same position.

Please show me where in the Human Rights Act it talks about seniority. A seniority list, and the the working benefits that come with one's seniority, are negotiable items. Otherwise, how is it that a 3rd year A320 F/O makes a different salary than a 12th year?

Seniority and the benefits associated with it are found in Article 22 of the Air Canada/ACPA Collective Agreement. If they choose to, both parties could do away with the entire Seniority-based system in its entirety, and simply allow the employer to assign. For instance, we presently bid our schedules in order of seniority. Would it be a Human Rights violation if the employer simply dictated you where to fly to? Imagine if an employer did that; could you bring him in front of the Human Rights Tribunal?

Again, I cannot see how if the employer offers you a job that has the same responsiblities (F/O), the same income (consistent with B777 wages), the same number of hours worked (average of 81 hours a month), and same time off, that it would be construed as a Human Rights' violation.

[Martin Tamme]

Martin, I am an outsider (to this issue) and I don't share your characterization of the issues involved. I would be careful about portraying things as an outsider when you aren't one.

Cheers

(John Swallow)

John:

Then please explain to me how if your employer offers you a job that the held same responsiblities as you held before, making the same income as you did before, providing you with the same amount of hours work and time off as before, that it would be construed as a Human Rights violation? The only difference is that they are not letting you fly the type of aircraft that you wanted to fly or to the destinations that you wanted to fly to, which are only afforded under a seniority-based system.

[Rockie]

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.[/i]

Martin

Forcing people to a position below that which their seniority allows based on age is age discriminatory in accordance with (b) above. Air Canada has a seniority system that applies equally to everyone in the bargaining unit. Surely you can see the fault in your argument?

Also I am very much a man of principle which is why my opinion is what it is even though I will be as adversely effected as everyone else to whatever degree that turns out to be. In my opinion nobody senior to me owes me their job, that also works for people below me. I will get my turn and they will get theirs. If I decide to go at 60 that's my choice as it will be if I stay longer. Thank you to the flypast60 people for their efforts to give me that choice.

[accumulous]

For starters, reinstatement comes with original relative seniority which isn't going to help the guys hunched in the corner with the seniority list copies, stroking away with the black felt markers. If you want to go ahead and offer up your seniority bidding rights to the Company, go ahead. You'll be outvoted by about, oh, 2999 to 1.

Don't worry, the Court system will save you from ideas like that so when you're sitting in the left seat of the B787 at 59 years, 364 days, nobody with a list and a black marker will be tapping on the back of your chair, and saying, 'Scuse me, but your seat is back here now".

Everybody knows the quest for seniority. Discrimination. Not obvious enough?

Case in point - our PR Department. How transparent have we been??

1. We wrote an Age-related ‘Survey’ and spilled it to the national press. To those persons personally offended by it, the Optics looks like we advertised non-representation of minority rights. Maybe call an Advertising Agency next time and run it past them first.

2. Our full frontal attack group named itself the ‘Age 60 Committee’ and used that moniker on every piece of literature we pumped out, litigious or otherwise. You want to tackle a Human Rights Age issue? Rule number one. Don’t call yourself an Age-Related Anything. To those persons personally offended, the Optics appears about as subtle as wearing a full-body white sheet with eye-holes to a bonfire in Alabama.

3. We waltzed into a Parliamentary Committee, with a Bill concerning the end of Mandatory Retirement based on age on the table, and asked for an end to 3000 piloting careers at age 60. To those persons personally offended, the Optics of that is about as effective as tripping in on a firing squad and saying, “’Scuse me, over here”.

Bad optics, red herrings. Time to accept the fact that you're only trying to screw your own rights package out the window. If ever there was a more ridiculous mission, it's not yet been dreamed up.

[Rockie]

By the way, there are still people thinking Air Canada has proven a BFOR of age 60 and that next December nothing happens. WAY past time for a newsletter from ACPA. Their refusal to tell the truth to the members is shameful.

[Martin Tamme]

You guys are still talking about ACPA here. ACPA is no longer in the driver's seat... It's Air Canada, and that's the entity you are going to have to deal with on a forward-going basis. As it presently stands, Air Canada has a valid BFOR, not ACPA.

I merely pointed out Air Canada's apprehension with allowing pilots to fly past 60. I've also indicated as to what Air Canada had done to mitigate that apprehension with their offer of settlement. You have to understand that it's Air Canada that you are fighting from here on in, and also have to understand as to why Air Canada will fight this to the end.

If we were a status-pay airline or single type fleet, with the employer assigning the flights and destinations, Air Canada would have allowed pilots flying past 60 a long time ago.

[Martin Tamme]

...in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The only differentiation under Air Canada's Offer of settlement was that as opposed to laying over in Hong Kong, they would now be laying over in Portland, Oregon. They would still get keep their seniority with respect to other pilots on that equipment type as it pertained to selecting flights, layovers, days off, vacation, etc; while keeping the income associated with a B777.

Is that what the Act had in mind?