FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Fanblade wrote:Perhaps a picture would help Rockie?
Nice picture as it graphically illustrates what I'm saying. Your seniority tracks the same path as before except five years delayed (actually it will be better as some people will decide to go before 65). At each point on the red line you will be in the same aircraft you would have been on the green line 5 years earlier. You will spend as much time on each airplane on the red line as you would have on the green line, earning as much money as you would have on the green line. The lines represent seniority which for our purposes means money. They are parallel and equal in length once the five years is over meaning it's the same career delayed five years. But you'll also notice the red line is longer in total if you count the flat part at the top. Longer red line equals more pay.

You will make the same money from 2017 onwards until you retire at 65 as you would have from 2012 onwards retiring at 60. Why? Because you're at the same seniority level with the same amount of years left in your career in both cases. You will also make 5 years more salary in your current seat from 2012-2017 that you wouldn't have before. Your salary increases will be delayed 5 years but you'll still get them when you should if you go to 65. Honestly, it's such a simple concept I don't know why people don't get it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Doug Moore »

While I am loathe to insert myself into this discussion (bit of a thread drift), but I have to say, Fanblade, that I am with Rockie on this one.

It appears to me that you are basing your argument on assumptions that you consider to be fixed for all time. Too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career thereby making it impossible to predict earnings. The economy is always shifting and impacting the airline causing it to expand or contract. A merger can throw everything out the window. Health issues. I honestly don’t see how anyone can predict with any accuracy what they will, or will not earn throughout their career.

You mentioned above that earnings between ages 60-65 would be offset by lost pension income. I don’t understand that logic, in as much as to the best of my knowledge no one can collect an AC paycheque and an AC pension cheque at the same time. So there is no “lost” pension income by working past age 60. In matter of fact, if you are able to contribute to your pension plan for an additional 5 years, those contributions will allow you a higher pension income at age 65 vs. age 60. It is true that, no matter when you die after age 65, that you will have collected your pension for 5 years less than if you retired at age 60. If, for instance, you die at age 65 + one day (aside from the fact that you wouldn’t have collected a single pension cheque) you would still have been ahead financially by the difference between your employment income over those 5 additional years and your pension income amount collected beginning at age 60. At a minimum that’s 30% at 35 years service and if you have less than 35 years service the difference will be even greater – in your favor. Also in your favor, well your spouse’s favor in this example, she will enjoy a higher survivor benefit as a result of those extra 5 years contributions to your pension plan.

I also don’t understand your concerns as regards seniority progression. The seniority list at AC is 3000+ with seniority numbers having no co-relation to age. When everybody had to retire at age 60, the pecking order was set and everybody advanced in lockstep with that preset pecking order. Retirement was not the only factor as regards advancement. Airlines expand and contract, pilots die before retirement, pilots quit before retirement, pilots can get fired before retirement, pilots take early retirement. If everything was frozen in time, with no movement for 5 years between 60 & 65, and then time unfrozen – what has changed? The same pecking order is in place, the position you expected to move into at age 45 (to use that age as an example) will now be available at age 50, etc., etc. The difference is that you gained 5 additional years of employment income (a 45-year-old may not see that as a gain but later on might acquire a different view), with the added benefit of a higher pension on retirement. You might even see a little additional advancement in those last 5 years in as much as some (particularly older) pilots will most likely die between 60-65 and some pilots will choose early retirement.

I have looked at your graph and I don’t see how it supports your argument. Assume Pilot A is 59 years of age and junior Pilot B is 58 years of age. Pilot B was expecting in 12 months time to take Pilot A’s position and work in that position for one year before his own retirement. The rules change and now both can work to 65. At age 65, Pilot A retires and Pilot B moves ahead and works in that position for one year before his own retirement. I see both as having lost nothing financially, rather, both have gained 5 years additional earnings. I see the same thing for junior Pilots C,D,E,F, etc., be they 25 years old, 35 years old, or whatever.

With respect, I have been trying to follow your math, as you put it, but I just don’t “see” it. Yes, there is a 5-year period of significant slowdown in advancement (not frozen as in my example) but I do not see how your advancement in 2017 will have changed from what you expected in 2012, all other things being equal. I get the sense that you consider these 5 years to be some kind of a compounding millstone that 10 years from now will cause you to be worse off than you were in 2012. I don’t see it but I accept that it causes you great concern.

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------
 
Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund »

Academic, moot, speculative, theoretical—however one describes it, the discussion of what a pilot's career income expectations could have been, would have been, should have been, isn’t going to make any difference to that career income expectation now. There is no sense in arguing over graphs and speculating about what the financial impact would have been, one way or the other. The world has changed.

The fact is, mandatory retirement at age 60 ended two years ago. But not as a result of anything the FP 60 group did—the government ended it.

The only connection between the FP60 group and what actually happened is that they read the tea leaves accurately and told anyone and everyone who would listen, over eight years ago and continuously until it did happen, that it would happen—that it was inevitable given the legislative changes in every other Canadian jurisdiction, and that ACPA should negotiate some benefit in exchange for the windfall about to be realized by the employer when it did happen, rather than paying out sizeable compensation to those terminated as a result of ACPA maintaining its position, on the wrong side of the equation. We all know the result. ACPA not only did not negotiate any benefit for the value of the change (that Air Canada later reported in its financial statements), but it also paid huge sums in legal fees fighting its own members at the Tribunal and in court. It even had to raise its own members' dues in order to finance the litigation.

The only thing left to be determined now is whether the pilots whose employment was ended on the basis of the age 60 provision had their employment terminated in accordance with the law or in contravention of the law, and if the latter, what compensation must be paid to those individuals. The first issue will be decided by the court in January. The second, if it is required, will, to my understanding, be decided later by the Tribunal, if the court finds in favour of the FP60 pilots.

The rest is academic. There is no point in getting emotional about it. The die was cast some time ago.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Doug Moore wrote:
With respect, I have been trying to follow your math, as you put it, but I just don’t “see” it. Yes, there is a 5-year period of significant slowdown in advancement (not frozen as in my example) but I do not see how your advancement in 2017 will have changed from what you expected in 2012, all other things being equal. I get the sense that you consider these 5 years to be some kind of a compounding millstone that 10 years from now will cause you to be worse off than you were in 2012. I don’t see it but I accept that it causes you great concern.

Cheers,
Thanks for the well thought out response Doug. Yes this is a big concern to me. I'm actually surprised no one else sees it either. Well that's not true, an actuary would see it in a heart beat. On the other hand perhaps it's my back ground and I just expect everyone to see it. It's obvious.....right?.... :lol: .maybe not.

After a page and a half of explaining, and then have someone jump in (you) who obviously wants to understand(thank you), but isn't following me? Perhaps it's me? Perhaps I have done a rather crappy job of this.

So back to square one and a different approach. One last attempt.

Attached is a spread sheet:

It's a make believe company.

The benchmark on the left in green.

-Everyone works from 30 to 60 and then retires.
-Everyone gets 50% of their best five years for pension in retirement.
-The pay scale works like this. Year 1-6 employees are paid 1. Years 7-12 are paid 2. Years 13-18 are paid 3. Years 19-24 are paid 4. Years 25-30 are paid 5. I have deliberately chosen this very basic pay scheme to make sure the focus is not on money but rather the mechanics of the outcome.

-To the right of the benchmark in our fictitious employee group are four separate scenarios. Each scenario represents a five year delay in progression due to retirement changed from 60 to 65.

- in each case the delay is 5 years. In each case the loss is 5 within those 5 years. Just like Rockie and Raymond assert.

THIS IS THE POINT IM TRYING TO GET ACROSS.

- notice that the earlier the delay takes place the greater the career compensation loss is to age 60. It is NOT a single loss for a 5 year period.

If the delay happens at year 25? Compensation lost to age 60 is 5.5%. Delay at year 19? Compensation lost at age 60 is 11%. Delay at year 13? Compensation lost at age 60 is 16%. Delay at year 7? Compensation lost at age 60 is 22%.

Why is this happening? The 5 year delay compounds itself every time the next step is delayed. The more steps ahead of you? The greater the compounding.

Notice also that anyone from year 1-12 can not make up for this lost income even if they work to 65.

Notice that the total compensation to age 65 of the individual who experienced the retirement change at year 7. If he works to 65 his compensation is 7.5% less than the benchmark who retired at 60.

Again this was simply for demonstration purposes. Namely to point out that the impact is NOT just a five year delay. The largest factor in determining impact is "WHEN" the delay happens and the resulting compounding effect every time the next step is delayed. In fact not understanding the magnitude of the impact of "WHEN" is leading people to disregard some of the numbers floating around as propaganda. When in reality they just can't wrap their head around the mechanism leading to these very large numbers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
Demo.xlsx
(10.61 KiB) Downloaded 81 times
Last edited by Fanblade on Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
sportingrifle
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by sportingrifle »

Fanblade....the concept that you are trying to get across is basically compound interest applied to seniority numbers and the income that those numbers allow you to earn. If you can't understand the concept by 60, ain't much hope going forward......
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Nothing compounds.

Your career earnings after the waiting period from 2017 until you turn 65 will be identical (or higher thanks to pilots leaving before 65) to what your career earnings from 2012 to age 60 would have been before this change. Explain to me how it could not be? Same number of years service in both cases starting and ending at the same seniority level.

Your career earnings are identical because your career progression post-2017 will be identical (or better). Nobody jumps anybody on the list and you have the same number of years left in your career as before. Carrying any loss forward never mind compounding it is a false premise because there is no loss. Saying you lost any seniority is false because you haven't...nobody jumped ahead of you and you will retire at the same or better seniority as before. The money you earn during the five year hiatus is in addition to what you would have earned before. Explain to me how it could not be?

Of course people in higher paying seats will make more during those five years than junior people, but everybody earns more. The increases are not lost...they are delayed and not only do you get them, but you spend as much time in higher seats as you would have before and retire at the same seniority or higher than you would have before. There is no loss to compound so the premise is utterly false.

How can you have the same career plus an extra five years and earn less? Is there some kind of magic going on here?

Any loss you might have is only possible if you leave before age 65 and I think that's what you're basing your argument on whether you realize it or not. But if you do leave before 65 it is your choice to do so and you are willingly accepting the loss.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Doug Moore »

Hey Fanblade, thanks for the time and effort in putting together another explanation for thick heads like me. I have to confess that graphs have never been my strong suit but your accompanying explanation hopefully has allowed me to interpret your graph (and your concerns) correctly.

So this is what I have taken away from your explanation. Firstly, in the 5-year delay that everyone is experiencing as a result of the retirement age being increased from 60 to 65, your presumption is that everyone will at some point during those 5 years lose out on advancement to a higher paying position, thereby losing income. In the case of pilots who are actually of an age between 60 and 65, they will be affected the least due to the short time frame before retirement, and the likelihood that they will be in, or near their highest paying position attainable anyway.

But as we move backwards in age groups, say ages 30-35, (this one picked arbitrarily by me) those pilots also will, in that 5-year period, lose out on advancement to a higher paying position. That income loss, whatever it may be (say X dollars) must be carried forward (at a compounded rate?) until retirement despite their eventual advancement into that higher paying position held back from them due to the increase in retirement age.

But it gets worse. Every advancement throughout the remainder of that pilot’s career has been delayed by 5 years (strictly an arbitrary number picked by me) and each delay in advancement is accompanied by a subsequent income loss, which, as previously noted, must be carried forward until retirement. The younger the pilot in age, the more are the advancements that are delayed with accompanied income loss, all of these cumulative losses being carried forward until retirement.

Thus, the younger in age the pilot, the more are the number of advancements that will be delayed, incurring cumulative losses that must be carried forward until retirement, thereby resulting in the youngest pilots losing the most.

Is what I have relayed above a reasonably correct interpretation of your concerns? If not, perhaps you can give it one more shot as I don’t wish to continue with my response if I don’t have it right!

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Doug,

Big thumbs up. Bang on.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:
How can you have the same career plus an extra five years and earn less? Is there some kind of magic going on here?
No magic. Just the clash of a very deeply ingrained preconceived expected result, with reality. You did say prove it. Three times in one post I believe.

You have two choices now.

1) figure out why your preconceived expection was in error.

Or

2) Declare Fanblade is performing witchcraft, form a mob, and burn him at the stake for blasphemy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
43S/172E
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 43S/172E »

Fanblade I have been reading the exchange between yourself and your "learned" friend.

I have found your writing factual and edifying where as the rest is vapid, pedestrian along with being pedantic in nature.

It is sad that you have to deal with people who can not grasp the obvious in which you can see.

Maintain your discipline of painting life's canvas with broad confident strokes in which you will find rewarding.

A very good Doctor friend of mine has said many times when one is in the nursing home with salivate running down your face at least you can say you did wondrous things in life as opposed to wished you have.

I will state emphatically if one wants to work past 60 go ahead but be careful what you wish for and reflect on the above.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5233
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

So what happens if you lose the appeal ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Doug Moore »

Fanblade wrote:Doug,
Big thumbs up. Bang on.
All right! I didn’t want to press on if I didn’t understand your position.

I believe you had mentioned somewhere above that any actuary would understand where you were coming from and, if I didn’t mention it, I am no actuary! However, I do believe that I have a very basic understanding of actuarial assumptions and for what purposes they are used. For instance, when calculating pension parameters, actuarial assumptions are used for the purposes of calculating risk assessment in order to determine how much money will be required to provide a specific benefit, at a specific age, for a specific time. Absent all actuarial assumptions, Pension Plan administrators would have no idea how much money they need to have on hand (invested) in order to pay their pensioners each and every month.

I am not convinced, however, that applying any actuarial-type assumptions to an AC pilot’s future earnings has any value going forward. As I mentioned earlier, too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career to allow any reasonable prediction of what a pilot’s career expectations/income will, or will not be. Who knows who will bid what – and when? Can one assume that every pilot will always bid the next highest position with zero below? How does one apply assumptions to address those who bid the most senior position on junior aircraft or, a junior position on senior equipment? I have known senior pilots to remain in junior positions (their preference) until retirement. How can one apply such bidding variables into the model you have described? How can assumptions be developed for pilot lay-offs or a merger where everyone's expectations require adjustmentI – how can one develop assumptions to accomodate those variables into the model you have described in order to predict lost income (20-30 years out) at the end of a career?

I agree with you that one could take a “snapshot” at the moment the retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 and see, using your model, that the junior guy will suffer an income loss at the end of the day, all things being equal and fixed forever at that moment. But tomorrow, next month, next year, brings change. Perhaps the airline will double in size, maybe retrench, maybe go out of business. Who knows? How can one develop, let alone apply, assumptions to address such life variables into the model you have described and predict with any degree of accuracy income loss or gain? I don’t believe you can and have it hold any meaning.

The way I see it today, mulling over how badly or how good things are as a result of the increase in the retirement age is a Mug’s Game. Somewhere above you indicated that you have accepted this change in retirement age (life happens) but have difficulty accepting that this change was/is for the betterment of everyone. Well, bad or good, it is what it is. I believe that a great future lies ahead for all pilots at AC – best to focus on that, in my view.

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Doug Moore on Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

Big Pistons Forever wrote:So what happens if you lose the appeal ?
There are actually three appeals, one filed by each of the employer, the union and the affected pilots. The only higher court than the Federal Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court of Canada, and one must be granted leave to appeal, by the Court. It hears only about 80 cases a year, so getting leave is very problematic, given the number of applications. One of the requirements for granting leave is that the legal issue be one of significant national importance.

Having said that, any of the three parties could apply for leave.

We expect the FCA to deal with these issues with finality (i.e. correctly state the law in respect of the facts).

I cannot speak on behalf of either the employer of the union, as to their probable action in the event of losing the appeals. If they lose, we expect the FCA to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a final decision, based on the reasons in the decision.

For the Coalition, as with any appeal the next step in the process is a decision made by the clients, with the help and recommendation of counsel. That invariably turns on the wording and reasoning of the decision, and the perceived likelihood of success at the next level.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Raymond Hall on Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Instead of insulting people and placing undue faith in graphs and spreadsheets produced with incorrect assumptions, let's try a thought experiment instead.

Old system:

1. 25 year old pilot.
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 60
4. Retires at age 60 with seniority number 50

New system. Pilot sits in current seat until 2017 when he is:

1. 30 years old
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 65
4. Retires at age 65 with seniority number 50.

Can anybody dispute this comparison? I'll just assume not.

Ok...so, In 2017 the pilot's advancement continues as before and he spends exactly the same amount of time in successively higher seats as he would have pre-2012 and eventually retires with the same seniority number after the same number of years service. Can anybody dispute that?

The pilot's career has been identical from 2017 until retirement 35 years later at age 65 as it would have been from 2012 until retirement 35 years later at age 60. Any disputes yet?

Now the question. If his career is identical for those 35 years in both cases how is it he earned less money? Does he get paid less for each position because of the delay in getting it? Does ten years left seat A320 pay less if those ten years occur five years later?

The problem with your spreadsheet and ACPA's financial impact study Fanblade is that it assumes normal uninterrupted career progression as a baseline plus another five years tacked onto the back end of your career. But those pesky guys above you on the list also get to stick around keeping you from advancing for those five years and that's what you consider your loss. In other words you want your cake and eat it too. But it doesn't work that way. Our fixed seniority list ensures that unaffected career rate of advancement to the top, and adding additional years to the career cannot co-exist so any calculation using both in the same baseline is invalid from the start. You get one or the other - never both.

Nobody is taking a loss, everybody is making extra if they choose to go to 65. It's just not making as much extra as guys in higher paying seats. Perhaps if ACPA had made the right decision years ago - or at any time between 2006 and 2012 - that inequity could have been proactively addressed before the law changed - as everybody knew it would - and it was too late. But we know that didn't happen and we know why.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:Instead of insulting people and placing undue faith in graphs and spreadsheets produced with incorrect assumptions, let's try a thought experiment instead.

Old system:

1. 25 year old pilot.
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 60
4. Retires at age 60 with seniority number 50

New system. Pilot sits in current seat until 2017 when he is:

1. 30 years old
2. Seniority number 2800
3. 35 years service until retirement at age 65
4. Retires at age 65 with seniority number 50.

Can anybody dispute this comparison? I'll just assume not.
Rockie,

You aren't using numbers to prove your point. Instead you are using logic which is flawed. It's unfortunate because you could have simply taken the very rudimentary spread sheet I created and adapted it to your scenario.

I have done it for you. (Attached)

Perhaps this will help your understanding of what it transpiring. Notice on the sheet how many years each scenario to the right remains behind the benchmark.

Scenario 1 has 5 years behind the benchmark and loses 7% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 2 has 10 years behind the benchmark and loses 14% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 3 has 15 years behind the benchmark and loses 20% of their pay to age 60.

Scenario 4 has 20 years behind the benchmark and loses 27% of their pay to age 60.

Only scenario 1 and 2 ( top of seniority list) produce compensation to age 65 greater than the benchmark.

Both scenario 3 and 4 (bottom of list) produce less compensation to age 65 than the benchmark, even though they worked 5 years longer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
Rockies demo.xlsx
(10.73 KiB) Downloaded 74 times
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

How exactly is my logic flawed? You dispute my logic so how would example 1 differ from example 2? Leave amounts out of it since I'm sure even you can agree ten years in a particular seat pays the same in each example. Or maybe that's where your mistake is?

Where exactly is the flaw in my logic? after 2017 where exactly is your career differing from the old rules? Where exactly are you making less money?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Rockie on Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Doug Moore wrote:
Fanblade wrote:Doug,
Big thumbs up. Bang on.
All right! I didn’t want to press on if I didn’t understand your position.

I believe you had mentioned somewhere above that any actuary would understand where you were coming from and, if I didn’t mention it, I am no actuary! However, I do believe that I have a very basic understanding of actuarial assumptions and for what purposes they are used. For instance, when calculating pension parameters, actuarial assumptions are used for the purposes of calculating risk assessment in order to determine how much money will be required to provide a specific benefit, at a specific age, for a specific time. Absent all actuarial assumptions, Pension Plan administrators would have no idea how much money they need to have on hand (invested) in order to pay their pensioners each and every month.

I am not convinced, however, that applying any actuarial-type assumptions to an AC pilot’s future earnings has any value going forward. As I mentioned earlier, too many variables are constantly at play throughout a pilot’s career to allow any reasonable prediction of what a pilot’s career expectations/income will, or will not be. Who knows who will bid what – and when? Can one assume that every pilot will always bid the next highest position with zero below? How does one apply assumptions to address those who bid the most senior position on junior aircraft or, a junior position on senior equipment? I have known senior pilots to remain in junior positions (their preference) until retirement. How can one apply such bidding variables into the model you have described? I have lived through a 33-month lay-off and survived 5 mergers – how can one apply those variables into the model you have described in order to predict lost income?

I agree with you that one could take a “snapshot” at the moment the retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 and see, using your model, that the junior guy will suffer an income loss at the end of the day, all things being equal and fixed forever at that moment. But tomorrow, next month, next year, brings change. Perhaps the airline will double in size, maybe retrench, maybe go out of business. Who knows? How can one develop, let alone apply, assumptions to address such life variables into the model you have described and predict with any degree of accuracy income loss or gain? I don’t believe you can and have it hold any meaning.

The way I see it today, mulling over how badly or how good things are as a result of the increase in the retirement age is a Mug’s Game. Somewhere above you indicated that you have accepted this change in retirement age (life happens) but have difficulty accepting that this change was/is for the betterment of everyone. Well, bad or good, it is what it is. I believe that a great future lies ahead for all pilots at AC – best to focus on that, in my view.

Cheers,
Doug,

I agree with you to a point. It's now moot. Absolutely nothing we can do about it.


There is the issue of accuracy that has meaning to me. But closer to the litigation at hand, the Federal courts rulings look as if they may be looking at this. Not to change my lot in life of course. That's done. Rather to look at how much financial harm really took place for the litigants against the backdrop of what happened everywhere else as a result of the change.

The litigants are the financial benchmark prior to change. Very few will do better financially than the litigants. The vast majority will do worse financially. Even if the courts find that the litigants where discriminated against, was there financial harm to them as a result?

I'm no lawyer. So maybe I'm missing something about proving harm. Like I said earlier. From the cheap seats? It looks like the benchmark is pissed off that they were not scenario 1 and want compensation based on that all the while refusing to look at scenario 2 through 4.

I'm happy to hear however that the federal court sees it differently than the litigants.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:How exactly is my logic flawed? You dispute my logic so how would example 1 differ from example 2? Leave amounts out of it since I'm sure even you can agree ten years in a particular seat pays the same in each example. Or maybe that's where your mistake is?

where exactly is the flaw in my logic?
Rockie,

You can't leave math out. At the end of the day the math either validates or invalidates the hypothesis. Leaving out the math means you want your hypothesis to stand without validation.

I think I have done enough to provide you with not only explanation, pictures and even a tool (spreadsheet) to help you understand.

Like I said a page or so ago. 2+2=4. No matter how much you yell and scream that it equals 5 won't change the fact it equals 4.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Your picture proved my point, not yours, and it was dead simple compared to a spreadsheet you created yourself containing irrelevant numbers derived by unknown calculations that themselves are based on flawed assumptions. I've shown you where you're making your mistake, so show me where I'm making mine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MackTheKnife
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:54 am
Location: The 'Wet Coast"

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by MackTheKnife »

Rockie wrote:compared to a spreadsheet you created yourself containing irrelevant numbers "........ based on flawed assumptions. .

And there in lies the fallacies with Fanblades theories IMO.

They are based on every pilot have a constant linear career when the reality is anything but. With over 3000 pilots having almost as many different reasons for bidding equipment types, which are then reviewed and changed nearly every 6 months, it is literally impossible to project anyones career earnings.

The fact of the matter is that neither side of this discussion means squat in the big picture. The ONLY thing that matters is what the courts will hopefully soon decide based on legal arguments, not totally irrelevant emotional ones.

MTK
---------- ADS -----------
 
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”