* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Directory * Topsites *Weather *Enter Chat * Media Kit
It is currently Mon May 20, 2013 12:40 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics




Board index » Airlines » Air Canada

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is chatting
Who is chatting
Enter Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 12
  [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Rockie
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 4859
Ah_yeah wrote:
Norwegian, you can trumpet THE LAW all you want but let's wait and see what reality delivers.


You wouldn't know reality if it drop kicked you in the face, which it did by the way last December 15th. That's also just the beginning of much more painful reality to come, not the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
Mig29
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:47 am
Posts: 1078
You guys are a real piece of work I tell ya!! :shock:

WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS AGAINST THIS AND THE UNION TO DO ABOUT THIS NEW LAW?!!

I'm out of here....I'm not going to give you the excuse to crack another 1000+ posts on here....

ps. I would more worry about this then your new Law.


Attachments:
stocks.gif
stocks.gif [ 3.75 KiB | Viewed 1404 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
Rockie
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 4859
Mig29 wrote:
WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS AGAINST THIS AND THE UNION TO DO ABOUT THIS NEW LAW?!!


In simple terms even you can understand....comply with it.

Now if we have any brain cells left over we can think of ways to make it work to our advantage in soooo many ways. But I've long since given up hope for that kind of progressive thinking.

The first way I can think of right off the top of my head is solving the company's pension solvency problem for them and extracting a very big price for it. The list goes on from there, and is being completely ignored by ACPA while they cower in the corner in fear of answering for this fiasco.


Top
 Profile  
 
777longhaul
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:04 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:25 am
Posts: 120
Arbitration Award Jan 09 2012

RE: AC flight attendants-- mandatory retirement at age 65.

In a released Arbitration Award from Arbitrator Kaplan yesterday Jan 9, 2012 Air Canada has been told:

A. maintain employment of FA`s turning 65
B. offer to re-employ those members who had filed a Grievance
C. offer to re-employ those employees who turned 65 since Sept 23/2010 the date of filing the Grievance.


Remember, acpa, has refused to file any Grievances from ANY of the FP60 group. The legal, requirement, to apply to the CHRC and then go to the CHRT, is for EACH pilot to file a formal acpa grievance request. That is step number one.

acpa, has refused to file period.

Wonder if, the ruling today will add any weight to the FP60 issue? acpa, is the only union in AC, that is now refusing to file a Grievance for its active members. The other unions, have filed Grievances, and their members, have been reinstated by the Arbitrators.


Top
 Profile  
 
Raymond Hall
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 323
Here is the text of Arbitrator Kaplan's award:

Re: Mandatory Retirement (CHQ-10-46) -Interim Award

Following the filing of a number of grievances pursuant to the collective agreement and complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement at age sixty-five of Cabin Personnel represented by the Union, I hereby issue this interim award:

1. Subject to the successful completion of any training and medical clearance(s) which its rules, regulations or policies may require, Air Canada shall forthwith:

(a) Maintain the employment of any Cabin Personnel who wish to continue to work for Air Canada beyond the month in which they turn sixty-five;

(b) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel for whom the Union filed grievances pursuant to the collective agreement or who filed complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement prior to the date of this award;

(c) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel who retired at age sixty-five on or after September 23, 2010 (the date of filing of Union policy grievance CHQ-10- 46);

2. Cabin Personnel reinstated pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) or (c) shall have their service and seniority dates adjusted to reflect no interruption in service.

3. The continuation of the employment of any Cabin Personnel pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) or the re-employment of any former Cabin Personnel pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (c) is on an interim basis pending a final determination applicable to Cabin Personnel on the constitutionality of s. 15(1 )(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act or an Act of Parliament removing, from that legislation, mandatory retirement as an exception to the rule against age discrimination.

4. In the event that the constitutionality of s. 15(1 )(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is upheld or that that section is not removed by an Act of Parliament, either party may request that I reconsider this interim award or address the grievance on its merits.

5. The parties are directed to meet forthwith to try to resolve any issues regarding benefits/compensation for the aforesaid employees. If resolution cannot be reached, the Parties may agree to hold that issue in abeyance pending the final determination or the Act of Parliament referenced in paragraph 3 above. Otherwise, any such issues may be referred to mediation/arbitration before me.

6. This interim award is without prejudice to the position of either party with respect to, without limitation, the benefits or compensation, if any, to be paid or provided to Cabin Personnel who accept Air Canada's offer of re-employment pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) or (c) or the apportionment of liability for any such benefits or compensation.,

DATED this 9th of January 2012

William Kaplan


Top
 Profile  
 
Raymond Hall
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:34 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 323
777longhaul wrote:
The legal, requirement, to apply to the CHRC and then go to the CHRT, is for EACH pilot to file a formal acpa grievance request. That is step number one. acpa, has refused to file period.


Partially correct. However, the two options, grievance request and CHRC complaint, are totally independent as they stem from the concurrent jurisdiction of the arbitrator under the Canada Labour Code and the Commission under the CHRA. Either can be used, although the process, potential remedies, and obviously the time frame of the final determination of each process varies.

What we have seen in all of the non-ACPA grievances and arbitrations so far is that the arbitrator accepts limited jurisdiction to apply an interim remedy (not available under the other statutory process) and then defers to the CHRT and the existing litigation before the Tribunal and the courts for the final legal determination of the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement exemption.

The Federal Court of Appeal decision of that issue could be released as early as later this month, but most likely will not be released until next month, given the complexity of the legal issues before the court.

You are correct in stating that ACPA has so far refused to file a grievance on behalf of pilots requesting same. So far, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has upheld ACPA's decision to not file grievances.

There is a fifth union at Air Canada that has not been involved in this process, to my knowledge, namely the Flight Dispatchers' union. I have no knowledge of whether there has been a grievance filed with respect to mandatory retirement of those union members. So technically, it may not be correct to say that every union save for ACPA has now taken the mandatory retirement issue to arbitration.


Top
 Profile  
 
777longhaul
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:02 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:25 am
Posts: 120
Raymond

Thanks for the corrections, and taking the time to post, to help inform those invovled, and those that are surfing this issue.

For those that have read the award:

From the Award today:

Read the second part of line "b" again:

(b) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel for whom the Union filed grievances pursuant to the collective agreement or who filed complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement prior to the date of this award;


Top
 Profile  
 
Stu Pidasso
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:55 pm
Posts: 110
Substantial differentiation between bringing back a retired F/A and a Pilot. Toss the F/A into the next available two day ART class and you're done - fully qualified and highly skilled F/A.

Bring back 200 Pilots into the left seat of Wide Bodies?


Top
 Profile  
 
duranium
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:45 am
Posts: 113
Those 200+ pilots you mention are at the top of their profession, 30+ years of experience, quite smart, been there, done that and just waiting to get back to doing what they enjoy a lot, flying metal thru the sky. Makes for a great combo for your Cie to seriously consider, dont you think?

Me thinks you are seriously underestimating your former co workers. As many have written, watch you six, you could be vulnerable big time


Top
 Profile  
 
Rockie
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 4859
Stu Pidasso wrote:
Substantial differentiation between bringing back a retired F/A and a Pilot. Toss the F/A into the next available two day ART class and you're done - fully qualified and highly skilled F/A.

Bring back 200 Pilots into the left seat of Wide Bodies?


Yes, it's going to be disruptive and very, very expensive. But it's not like Air Canada pilots weren't told this could and probably would happen. I guess pushing as many out the door as possible before mandatory retirement was abolished wasn't such a good idea after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stu Pidasso
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:54 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:55 pm
Posts: 110
I guess I missed the part about "Retroactivity!" When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.

Furthermore, when have we ever reacted to a "maybe" or a "this could" happen. We chose to wait and see what the Canadian Government would rule.

It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"


Top
 Profile  
 
Rockie
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 4859
Stu Pidasso wrote:
When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.


True enough, but the change in law also doesn't effect the nearly 200 cases grinding their excruciatingly slow way through the CHRT. They will still be decided on their merits.

Stu Pidasso wrote:
It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"


No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.


Top
 Profile  
 
vic777
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 421
Rockie wrote:
No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.
Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.


Top
 Profile  
 
Rockie
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:15 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 4859
vic777 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.


No.

I don't think ACPA can declare itself bankrupt when they have the ability to raise the funds through special assessment. And running away from our obligations like that is even more shameful than how and why we attracted them in the first place. We would deserve the scorn and distrust we earn by doing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
vic777
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 421
Rockie wrote:
vic777 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.


No.

I don't think ACPA can declare itself bankrupt when they have the ability to raise the funds through special assessment. And running away from our obligations like that is even more shameful than how and why we attracted them in the first place. We would deserve the scorn and distrust we earn by doing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
sepia
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:00 pm 
Offline
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 285
Location: creating a warmer print tone
Rockie wrote:
Stu Pidasso wrote:
When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.


True enough, but the change in law also doesn't effect the nearly 200 cases grinding their excruciatingly slow way through the CHRT. They will still be decided on their merits.

Stu Pidasso wrote:
It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"


No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.



Ahh yes, back with the fear mongering again. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how liability works in a case like this?
Call it shameless or whatever you like, but there's a zero percent chance that ACPA members are going to have a special assessment and have to pay for this.


Top
 Profile  
 
vic777
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:12 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 421
sepia wrote:
Ahh yes, back with the fear mongering again. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how liability works in a case like this?
Call it shameless or whatever you like, but there's a zero percent chance that ACPA members are going to have a special assessment and have to pay for this.
Sepia, do you have the slightest clue as to where ACPA gets its money? If ACPA pays, it comes out of the Pilot's pocket.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stu Pidasso
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:55 pm
Posts: 110
Maybe explain to us, what ACPA could be liable for?

They had a Collective Agreement in place, with an age 60 retirement. There were no laws in place that they violated.

The laws have just recently changed and we will move forward, pretty clear and simple.

Bad news for those that were (are) looking for an ACPA Lottery, out of the pockets of the Pilots they flew with.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stu Pidasso
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:55 pm
Posts: 110
Sorry, duplicate post.


Top
 Profile  
 
Raymond Hall
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 323
Stu Pidasso wrote:
Maybe explain to us, what ACPA could be liable for? They had a Collective Agreement in place, with an age 60 retirement. There were no laws in place that they violated. The laws have just recently changed and we will move forward, pretty clear and simple. Bad news for those that were (are) looking for an ACPA Lottery, out of the pockets of the Pilots they flew with.


How quickly you forget. The contract provision was ruled by the Tribunal to be of no force and effect, by reason of the unconstitutionality of the mandatory retirement exemption in the statute. That meant that the termination of employment of Vilven and Kelly was in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Air Canada's evidence in the VK remedy hearing was that the difference between the salary and the pension was $10,000 per month for the period between the date of the Charter decision and the date of reinstatement for Neil Kelly. Almost the same for George Vilven. That is what the Tribunal awarded them as damages. As I understand it, ACPA paid half and Air Canada paid the other half. Your suggestion that this issue is some sort of "lottery" not only trivializes the entire subject, but demonstrates a clear lack of awareness of the downside risk of what is taking place.

I will be the first to admit that there is no certainty in the outcome of any legal proceeding. What we are talking about is potential liability. But that is what your question addresses. What could ACPA be liable for? There is a potential liability, based on the issues and based on the precedent of $X dollars per complainant times the number of complainants (approximately 150 at this point), divided by 2. That is what ACPA could be liable for, and the number is quite substantial.


Top
 Profile  
 
accumulous
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:09 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:05 am
Posts: 299
Stu Pidasso wrote:
Maybe explain to us, what ACPA could be liable for?

They had a Collective Agreement in place, with an age 60 retirement. There were no laws in place that they violated.

The laws have just recently changed and we will move forward, pretty clear and simple.

Bad news for those that were (are) looking for an ACPA Lottery, out of the pockets of the Pilots they flew with.


Liability in the Flight Attendant case should be remarkably different than in the Pilot case.

You really have to admire the Flight Attendants' savvy. It took them about 5 nanoseconds to figure out what the Pilots will never be able to figure out.

As with the other unions except ACPA, like the Machinists, the Flight Attendants Union CUPE, represents ALL of their members, and so as a result of taking their members’ grievances to arbitration, and not to court, the sole liability would seem to rest with AC, now that AC has been ordered to offer re-employment and compensation, and not the rest of the entire CUPE membership.

ACPA only represents some of their members and is a Respondent to the various Court issues in play, clearly having lost control years ago, and so has held the entire membership up for liability, including the majority, in absolute numbers, 1701 pilots who either did not vote for, or who were against the splinter initiative to take on Parliament and the Courts.

It seems that CUPE has protected its members’ interests against liability while ACPA has laid its entire membership right out on the autopsy slab and is simply content to say, in the event we lose on liability, please just roll the bodies over, the wallets are in the back pockets. Help yourself. Thanks very much.

And that folks, is the fundamental difference between a Flight Attendant, and a Pilot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stu Pidasso
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:55 pm
Posts: 110
Raymond:

The "Lottery" connotation describes this, at least in my mind. We all individually know many of the 150 complainants. Of the ones I know (which is quite a few) only one individual wants to return to flying status.

They didn't want to miss out on a chance for a cash payout - period - regardless of the public persona.

All done using the guise of; "you violated my Human Rights." This is what has made this so distasteful, nothing to do with "Human Rights" and everything to do with money.

...big surprise.

I've rolled on the issue but I will take you on for a bottle of good Scotch (duty free mind you,) that no one comes back.

Cheers


Last edited by Stu Pidasso on Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:07 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
SilentMajority
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 76
Speaking of ACPA and its ability to put our money at potential risk.....has anybody here seen where our tab is at, as of late?

Legal fees from Day 1 until today?

Estimate of pending legal fees to further defend this "worthwhile cause"?

Actual amount of cash that was paid out to both George Vilven and Neil Kelly
.......and....... if "Craig" is overturned, are we on the the hook for any back wages owed to these guys?

How about at least an estimate of our share of the potential liability, should (heaven forbid) we lose this case and are on the hook for half as Air Canada has stipulated (in court):

150 pilots times $10,000 per month times 30 months (Sept. '09 to end of Feb '12)?....only half of course.


Last edited by SilentMajority on Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
accumulous
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:06 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:05 am
Posts: 299
Stu Pidasso wrote:
Raymond:

The "Lottery" connotation describes this, at least in my mind. We all individually know many of the 150 complainants. Of the ones I know (which is quite a few) only one individual wants to return to flying status.

They didn't want to miss out on a chance for a cash payout - period - regardless of the public persona.

All done using the guise of; "you violated my Human Rights." This is what has made this so distasteful, nothing to do with "Human Rights" and everything to do with money.

...big surprise.

I've rolled on the issue but I will take you on for a bottle of good Scotch (duty free mind you,) that no one comes back.

Cheers



Note the key word(s) in the Arbitrator's Order to Air Canada refers to employ(ment).

1. Subject to the successful completion of any training and medical clearance(s) which its rules, regulations or policies may require, Air Canada shall forthwith:

(a) Maintain the employment of any Cabin Personnel who wish to continue to work for Air Canada beyond the month in which they turn sixty-five;

(b) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel for whom the Union filed grievances pursuant to the collective agreement or who filed complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement prior to the date of this award;

(c) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel who retired at age sixty-five on or after September 23, 2010 (the date of filing of Union policy grievance CHQ-10- 46);

2. Cabin Personnel reinstated pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) or (c) shall have their service and seniority dates adjusted to reflect no interruption in service.


When you file with the CHRC as 200 pilots have done, the application is for reinstatement. Call the 1-800 number and get yourself an application to have a look. Go to the applicable websites and read the Remedy Decisions and the Orders. Numero Uno is re-employment.

The Flight Attendants' arbitration award has everything to do with going back to work. It's right there in black and white just a ways up the page. That Order should give you some idea of what to expect in reality, and the red herring response to this case is just that, a red herring.

And as in 'Forthwith' as above,

Forthwith: adv. a term found in contracts, court orders, and statutes, meaning as soon as it can be reasonably done. It implies immediacy, with no excuses for delay.


Last edited by accumulous on Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Raymond Hall
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:22 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 323
Stu Pidasso wrote:
I've rolled on the issue but I will take you on for a bottle of good Scotch (duty free mind you,) that no one comes back.


The last time I accepted that bet I got paid with one of those miniature bottles of scotch. I guess I should have been more explicit before accepting the bet.

Nevertheless, I have recently done a fairly comprehensive survey of the complainants regarding their current intentions, and in all honesty cannot come to the same conclusion as you, either as to their primary motivation, or as to their intention to return. We have very large number who are either currently flying with other carriers, or who are sim instructors who need little more than a route check to be back on the line. JW Black, or Glenlivet please. 26 oz, and I don't care how you acquire it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 12
  [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next


Board index » Airlines » Air Canada

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], SayAgain and 28 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Advertisements by Advertisement Management
 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca

AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com
While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.