Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Mig29]

....keep pushing for your "rights" at the expense of rights of the rest of the pilot group.....that seems to be the new democracy theme of the 21st century in general.

[Ah_yeah]

RVR6000
No one cares....enjoy your retirement

Thanks. Now, I have a chance to retire and enjoy my retirement. I am really eventually looking forward to it.
Not, that I will ever really want to. I am working more than 160 hours/month to mitigate damages......and have been doing so pretty much since I retired.

Now with this latest ruling I gotta ask myself why?

I could have had my cake and eaten it too......and not worked another day........according to this ruling and then got paid for it......so, I guess that makes me a loser......

Except for one afternoon when I was on a platform when a mother was having a problem looking after her brood of kids......one little girl she had turned her back on, ran towards an incoming train and and jumped in front of it, when yours truly just happened to have interposed himself to a position, like spider man would have done, and saved the little girl.

that gave me more satisfaction than winning the arbitration for the 4th pilot on the HKG flights, that I guess you dorks have lost again.......so don't worry I will be back soon and help to get it back.

So, I do not give a hoot if you care......I just only care if you pay your portion of the damages, should the Association you support lose these next hearings. And, then blame them......not me.

Wouldn't it be ironic, Spiderman, if that little girl you saved had a father who was a young Air Canada F/O. You bask in heroism while dreaming of making her father pay. In the end you take away her ballet lessons and prevented her from going to college. You make me sick.

[duranium]

Our profession in this country is under enormous pressure from all sides, have a look at the jazz section or the general airlines section. It pretty sad that the flypast 60 group keeps pushing this issues, what's the average monthly pension for most of these guys, roughly $11000-13000/monthly. A very few active pilots in this country make that kind of coin, so cry me a river.

What utter false information. I have in front of me a copy of your present contract, provided by one of my friends and the numbers you present do not come even close to the thruth. 13000 means $156000.00 a year. You have got to be kidding or so full of hot air ( the remedy for that is named Beeno, you should try it ) that you will put a zeppelin to great shame.
No line pilot, to this day, as my friend explains to me with the numbers to prove it, never retired with close to that number of C $. A few, possibly could have came close these last few years to the 11000 number, but not what you write, that is'' most of these guys ''.

If you want to be credible to the forum readers, why not stick to facts and numbers that are easely verified and not try to snow us under with so much garbage. Try it sometimes, it could and will do you some good

[Mig29]

regardless, few thousands bucks more or less, these guys are retiring with more net income then majority of line captains are taking home today in Canada.

I said it before and I say it today again....greed of the humanity is what will bring the end of our civilization. The "democratic" rights of minorities are slowly chocking the democratically established rights of the majority, but the ones in power don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them...

[accumulous]

regardless, few thousands bucks more or less, these guys are retiring with more net income then majority of line captains are taking home today in Canada.

I said it before and I say it today again....greed of the humanity is what will bring the end of our civilization. The "democratic" rights of minorities are slowly chocking the democratically established rights of the majority, but the ones in power don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them...

Minorities don't have any rights? Sounds like you teleported here from a 19th century plantation. A lot of things have changed in the last century and a half. It's all available at your local library.

[Mig29]

no, I think it sounds like you are still living up on that cumulus cloud of yours, and have your vision fogged up there so you can't read anymore.

I said that these minorities are demanding their "rights" but are in essence invading on the rights of the rest of us. It's like a nation with a large number of cultures.......that nation eventually loses it's identity and has no culture at all....I have no problem if everyone wants to voice their rights, but then you have to sit down and listen to both sides of the argument and find a "solution" that will meet somewhere half way. That is not the case here.

[Norwegianwood]

I have no problem if everyone wants to voice their rights, but then you have to sit down and listen to both sides of the argument and find a "solution" that will meet somewhere half way. That is not the case here.

Correct! One side refused to sit down (acpa) so the adjudicator was called in, aka the courts! And that IS the case here.........

Solution at a court near you soon!

NW

[Dockjock]

Young people simmer down. Think of it this way, the lower you are on the seniority list, the less a couple hundred more seniors coming back onto the list affects you. The damage was done with the original decision, with thousands staying an extra few years! This is just the cherry. 200 more pilots? From a numbers perspective, it's a speck, right? The only thing to fear is that there are a bunch of self righteous condescending pricks being rehired, whom are by all accounts here, will continue to be. Humility, contrition, self-awareness? So far all I see is a bunch of sore winners.

[TheStig]

edit: nevermind

[Rockie]

....keep pushing for your "rights" at the expense of rights of the rest of the pilot group

What "rights" of the rest of the pilot group are being violated? There is no legal right to a set rate of career progression that I'm aware of but I could be wrong.

Interestingly the company chose to limit the career choices of all wide body FO's based on their age and the union seemed to have nothing to say about it. Moot now that the over/under requirement has been eliminated, but I think it was only a matter of time before someone mounted an age discrimination complaint against AC/ACPA over that as well.

[Mig29]

maybe we should just stop using the word "right" and ask ourselves is this "alright?".

Yes, I know you can go in McDonalds and burn your lips on hot coffee and sue them after.....or sue AC for not giving you 7 Up in French and win! Yes, you can sue a carrier for not giving you an extra free seat if you happen to be overweight.....and so on, but is this "alright"??

That answer of course will be different depends who you ask, but so far the decision has been one sided in this case.

[Rockie]

maybe we should just stop using the word "right" and ask ourselves is this "alright?".

That's a good idea.

I don't think it's alright that anybody should be forced to retire from a job they're capable of doing simply because of their age. I don't think it's alright that the pilot union failed to see the massively huge writing on the wall and fought an expensive and futile fight trying to prevent the unpreventable. I don't think it's alright that most pilots were happy to delay the inevitable as long as possible to further advance themselves up the list until the hammer dropped and pay whatever consequences resulted later. I don't think it's alright that those same pilots are now bitching about those consequences that they themselves knowingly created.

[Raymond Hall]

Interestingly the company chose to limit the career choices of all wide body FO's based on their age and the union seemed to have nothing to say about it. Moot now that the over/under requirement has been eliminated, but I think it was only a matter of time before someone mounted an age discrimination complaint against AC/ACPA over that as well.

Indeed. A complaint was filed last month with respect to that and with respect to other aspects of LOU 75 as well, including the age-prejudicial aspects of the GDIP.

[Ah_yeah]

Interestingly the company chose to limit the career choices of all wide body FO's based on their age and the union seemed to have nothing to say about it. Moot now that the over/under requirement has been eliminated, but I think it was only a matter of time before someone mounted an age discrimination complaint against AC/ACPA over that as well.

Indeed. A complaint was filed last month with respect to that and with respect to other aspects of LOU 75 as well, including the age-prejudicial aspects of the GDIP.

Insurance is full of age discrimantion...gender too.
Every pimpley 16 year old male that wants to drive a car can attest to that. Acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are "special", do you really want to go there ?

[ahramin]

Well said Rockie.

[Old fella]

Yer on a roll, boys. Seven pages and counting.............

[Rockie]

Insurance is full of age discrimantion...gender too. Every pimpley 16 year old male that wants to drive a car can attest to that. Acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are "special", do you really want to go there ?

I don't totally disagree with your comment regarding insurance since I think they use statistics to gouge their customers, but at least they have statistics backing up their argument. But you are mistaken thinking this change has anything to do with acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are special.

This is a human rights issue that effects everybody in the Canada. Provincially regulated workers have had protection from age discrimination for a long time and now the federal government has finally caught up with the rest of the country. This isn't about Air Canada pilots, but Air Canada must comply with Canadian law however much it annoys the junior pilots.

[777longhaul]

This issue, a long time ago, went to an acpa IVR vote. The "junior" pilots, did not respond all that much. So it must not have been a big deal to all of the juniors, as the COMPLETE lack of interest in the IVR vote shows, that the total pilots, only 44% even bothered to vote against this issue, and that includes all the pilots, not just the juniors. So, all this banter is coming from a few.....who like to stir it up, but have no size to their numbers.

The only vote acpa did, and published. The questions were carefully worded, and still.....the lack of interest in this IVR vote shows how un-important this issue was to ALL the pilots.

The IVR vote, # 72 had 3083 possible voters, (pilots eligible to vote) of that amount, 1382, voted to support the age discrimination rule, in the acpa contract. That is far less than the 75% that Justice Annis refers to.



IVR vote # 72:

3083 eligible

1382 yes

458 NO

Total votes 1840.

The total lack of interest, of the remaining pilots, who did not vote, (1243) shows, that acpa did NOT have a majority vote. They failed on the the yes vote, and on the total amount of voters that even showed any interest in the IVR vote.

This is a great difference that needs to be corrected. ONLY 44% of the pilots voted to maintain the discriminatory acpa contract.

[Raymond Hall]

Until about 10 years ago, legal knowledge was generally either a proprietary asset or it was expensive to obtain. Very expensive. Several dollars per minute to get results from QuickLaw or WestLaw.

Not so any more. The Federation of Law Societies, representing all of the Law Societies in Canada, formed a collective to make decisions from all courts, Boards and tribunals, and arbitrators and most adjudicative administrators available to the public for free.

Visit: http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html to obtain copies of all decisions related to the legal issue of your particular interest. You can search CanLII using Boolean search terms to narrow the results.

Almost all of the decisions related to this thread are posted on that site. To obtain only the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on a particular issue, select Federal / Supreme Court of Canada. You will find the binding case law precedent that governs the determinations of the lower courts and the Tribunals on this issue.

One of the specific issues of relevance to this thread is the SCC's dealing with the issue of differential treatment. Does any differential treatment constitute discrimination? Answer: Not always. Some differential treatment, based on gender, age etc. is just that, differential treatment, but not discrimination. Examples: survivor pension benefits and welfare payments to young persons. As Justice Binnie pointed out, quoting Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, a sign that says "Men Only" has a different significance when it is posted on a bathroom door than when it is posted on a courtroom door.

Of course, some differential treatment does meet the threshold of discrimination. The SCC has set out number of legal and factual tests to assist the lower courts in analyzing these issues, to determine when the threshold is met.

Keep in mind that this area of the law is a "moving target." Each new decision from the SCC provides new nuances, with some previous decisions and principles of legal analysis falling out of favour.

Nevertheless, recently the SCC has been quite consistent, in my view, in a number of areas of administrative law. Most importantly, it has become more aggressive in encouraging or requiring the lower courts to not interfere with the final decisions of administrative tribunals unless the applicants on judicial review can demonstrate that the decisions in question are not just wrong, but wholly unreasonable, given the facts and the law of the particular case.

[Fanblade]

This issue, a long time ago, went to an acpa IVR vote. The "junior" pilots, did not respond all that much. So it must not have been a big deal to all of the juniors, as the COMPLETE lack of interest in the IVR vote shows, that the total pilots, only 44% even bothered to vote against this issue, and that includes all the pilots, not just the juniors. So, all this banter is coming from a few.....who like to stir it up, but have no size to their numbers.

The only vote acpa did, and published. The questions were carefully worded, and still.....the lack of interest in this IVR vote shows how un-important this issue was to ALL the pilots.

The IVR vote, # 72 had 3083 possible voters, (pilots eligible to vote) of that amount, 1382, voted to support the age discrimination rule, in the acpa contract. That is far less than the 75% that Justice Annis refers to.



IVR vote # 72:

3083 eligible

1382 yes

458 NO

Total votes 1840.

The total lack of interest, of the remaining pilots, who did not vote, (1243) shows, that acpa did NOT have a majority vote. They failed on the the yes vote, and on the total amount of voters that even showed any interest in the IVR vote.

This is a great difference that needs to be corrected. ONLY 44% of the pilots voted to maintain the discriminatory acpa contract.

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?