FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[Ah_yeah]

Not correct. You don't know who Rockie is, but I do. We met once, when I was still an active line pilot, and we have corresponded a few times since then. He is not a member of the Coalition, so he is not privy to the correspondence that goes out to our members, but he is who he says he, a fairly junior line pilot, with a mind of his own.

And for the record, nobody (in the Coalition) is trying to "screw you over." Those types of comments are unhelpful to the discussion thread, and reflect more about your own unwillingness or inability to comprehend the significance of the legal issues to be decided than they do about the points raised in discussion here.

Fair enough on para. 1 Raymond. After 800 odd posts i'm sure I wasn't the only reader suspicious.

Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?

[Fanblade]

So what we have then is a five year delay in seniority and income progression, with five years added to the career at a fixed rate of income, plus the same income that would have previously been earned to age 60, that is now earned to age 65. The difference is simply five more years of salary at a flat rate.

You know what understated this statement is actually correct. I think I can work with it. I have changed the word salary to compensation. The word salary to me means leaving out other forms of compensation such as pension.

The difference is simply five more years of compensation at a flat rate

That difference applies to everyone to age 65. Even those who retired just prior to 2012. For them their fixed rate is a pension. So one would expect that any pilot who stagnated at a lower salary than a pension, would make less to age 65 than the litigants. Anyone who stagnated at a higher salary than a pension, would make more to age 65 than the litigants.

When viewed this way (total compensation to age 65 of the entire pilot group) the litigants fit in around the 50 percentile mark. They accomplished this while working 5 years less.

Help?

I'm not trying to predict an outcome of how the courts may or may not deduce financial harm. I am simply responding to statements that inaccurately claim everyone does financially better as a result of the change if they work to 65. This inaccurate view paints only the litigants with financial harm and MIGHT drive unrealistic expectations if not understood correctly.

[DH772]

So all the new hired pilots, employed after all this non sense should have saved ahead of time before accepting employment at AC?

[bluemic]

So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?

I swore to myself: “Self,” I said, “Do NOT get involved in this argument. Let it reside where it belongs. With the courts. Everything here is just venting - sprinkled with maybe a dose of entertainment.”

Alas, ‘Self’ didn’t listen and since “Ah_yeah’s” post had struck a nerve, I reluctantly forced myself to delay the morning martini, hang up on the talk-radio host, don my tattered and worn dressing gown and shuffle on over to the keyboard.

FWIW, I’m one of the “200”. (Why do pilot disputes always have to involve numbers? I mean, like, first we had the AC 243s, then the CX 49ers, the FP60 - and now the “200”! Do pilots have a fixation with numbers AND big watches? Did we spend too much of our childhood shuffling through pennies in our piggy bank? Are we that anal? But I’m meandering here.....so I’d best get back to the topic.)

I was about to say that I’m one of the litigants and add that I’m not confident there will be any compensation. Just my non-legal opinion of course (and obviously I’d like to be proven wrong) but again, that’s up to the justice system to decide.

What tugged at me was Ah_yeah’s comment about having to take out a second mortgage to pay for any damages. Such a scenario would indeed be a bitter pill for anyone to swallow.

BUT...surely you know that YOUR union elected to sign on for 50% of any damages? That YOUR union could’ve filed the grievances that they were asked to and they’d have absolved themselves of any financial risk to you, the members? That, had they done so, none of us would be posting here and any financial damages would’ve fallen squarely on the company’s shoulders?

But that’s not what happened was it? The union in its wisdom (some have called it a greedy version of Musical Chairs) decided they didn’t want anyone staying past 60 - at least not just now thankewverymuch - so they picked up their pens. With that, they put all of you on the possible hook. Definitely a “screwing over” as you put it, although probably not in the direction you intended.

Believe me Ah_yeah, I empathize with your predicament.

But my question to you is, Where were you when the union agreed to do this? Did you lobby your exec and shout: Whoooaaa! I’m not signing on for THAT! Did you perhaps join after the fact and are now stuck holding the bag? Have you been active in this issue or did you blindly ignore where YOUR union was taking you...and simply hope it would just fade away?

Because if you chose the latter, my sympathy meter is firmly pegged on “empty”.

Now....where’d I put the blue nectar?

mic

edited: spelling

[Raymond Hall]

Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?

Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.

[Norwegianwood]

[/quote]Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.[/quote]


Yikes, that's six (6) figures 100,000 times 200(litigants) which my trusty Microsoft calculator came back with $20M divided by 2 (1/2 each AC/acpa) = $10M acpa dollars divided by 3000 active pilots = $3333.33333333 each!

Small price to pay for not filing a grievance from the offset! Just like all the other unions did, but no we knew better! Right!!!!!

NW

[Rockie]

You know what understated this statement is actually correct.

Well hallelujah. To borrow a phrase Fanblade:

Excellent. I think we are almost done.

Until now you rejected numerous times the statement you just agreed with, but now at least I think we can dismiss your spreadsheet and its much ballyhooed math as a work of fiction and continue....

[Fanblade]

You know what understated this statement is actually correct.

Well hallelujah. To borrow a phrase Fanblade:

Excellent. I think we are almost done.

Until now you rejected numerous times the statement you just agreed with, but now at least I think we can dismiss your spreadsheet and its much ballyhooed math as a work of fiction and continue....

Rockie,

You are just embarrassing yourself in front of anyone who does get this. I read your posts and can tell you are an intelligent guy. This isn't exactly rocket science and multiple different angles have now been presented to help you understand. The only excuse I can think of is your putting next to no effort into understanding it.

I said the statement was correct but showed why the outcome wouldn't be as he ( and you) was expecting. It was simply a different approach to the same concept. You should read it as well as it is centre to why you are having such an issue understanding. If you actually read it? Maybe a light will go on.

But I mean really. Your getting to be a bit much on this topic. At least at the top of one page you admitted math isn't your best suit.

[Rockie]

Your error fanblade, is comparing each pilot's compensation with other pilots. There is an inequity there depending on which seat you sit in during the hiatus that is well known however the union refused to address it beforehand, so if you have an issue with it you should talk to them and ask why. Actually never mind since you didn't want them to anyway - I'm guessing you didn't ask them to address it before the rule changed or anytime since. Probably because you were happy to see your seniority rise as the union delayed the process for six years. Can you say "trade off"? After all logic told me that stalling the process in favour of seniority advancement would result in the inequities between seats for each year and I'm frankly shocked that math didn't tell you the same thing. Maybe it did and you just opted for the delay?

So do not compare your compensation increase with anybody above you, below you, retired pre-2012 or post 2012. It is irrelevant. The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases. If you don't believe that look at your last two total compensation statements from the company - they went up in all columns including pension. If you happen to be a pilot with 30 (actually 34) years potential service or less (there are many hundreds of them - maybe even you) your pension income on retirement will also rise.

Simple stuff Fanblade, and if you can think long and hard enough you will eventually realize it.

[Fanblade]

The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.

False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, personal attacks, or simply wear out your adversary and drive them to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.

[Rockie]

False.

What? Do you have another spreadsheet?

Actually what this is about is dispelling irrelevant, inaccurate bu****it passed off as fact...or in your case, math. Somebody has to do it.

[Norwegianwood]

The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.

False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, or drive the individual to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.

[Fanblade]

False.

What? Do you have another spreadsheet?

Actually what this is about is dispelling irrelevant, inaccurate bu****it passed off as fact...or in your case, math. Somebody has to do it.

Wow,

I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.


Check this article out. Better yet read some of the comments below it. I'm thinking there are lots of clues in here to help you operate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... et-trolls/

[777longhaul]

What do these mean?

NAR

BFOR

MOT
===================================================================================================================
NAR Normal age of retirement, is not 60 in Canada, and many other countries around the world. Courts have struck that down, for AC and acpa. New ICAO rule, (NOV 2014) it is age 65.

BFOR Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, struct down by the courts for AC, and acpa, has a chance in FCA, only due to FC (Federal court) giving them a faint hope shot. FCA will decide.

MOT NO age restriction on Licence and Medical. They are the top authority on your licence and medical.

IF.....acpa gets a BFOR ruling from the FCA, and it is used to continue the enforcement of the illegal age discrimination termination, (remember, AC was refused the BFOR rule, numerous times in court) THEN by the very definition of BFOR, ALL pilots at AC will have to be terminated from their employment, upon reaching age 60!

BFOR applied at age 60 is BFOR at age 60, doesnt matter what the ICAO rule is. IF .....acpa wants the BFOR, and they get it from the FCA, then all pilots who are 60, and over, are flying illegally at AC, because, there is, (according to acpa) a BFOR that was applied to the FP60 Coalition, and therefore, there has to be a BFOR to any and all pilots at 60. BFOR has a very strict definition, and if it is applied to age 60, (FP60 Coalition), by the laws of Canada, it must always be applied at age 60. What a beauty!!

This little following read, is from the official CHRC. (copied from their website)
==========================================

Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFORs)
Is there ever a time when a discriminatory employment rule is valid?

Actually, there is: when the rule is a BFOR - a bona fide occupational requirement. This means that the rule establishes a requirement that is necessary for proper or efficient performance of a job. The BFOR exception is included in virtually all human rights codes in Canada.

Let's look at BFORs in the context of adverse effect discrimination.

For example, a rule establishing that a stock clerk must be at least 6 feet in height and able to lift 100 pound boxes over the head indirectly discriminates against women because very few women would meet those qualifications.

However, if a rule is a legitimate qualification for doing a job - a BFOR - then it will be upheld. For a rule to qualify as a BFOR, it must be:

made honestly, in good faith, and in the sincere belief that it is made in the interests of effectiveness, safety, and productivity
objectively reasonable. In other words, it must have a sensible connection to the ability of an employee to do the job.
Any rule that is made with the intention of excluding an individual or group will fail, no matter how reasonable it may be.

In our stock clerk example, the rule would be a BFOR if all the shelves were high up, there was no room for a ladder and all the products to be stocked were at least 100 pounds. However, the rule wouldn't be considered to have a sensible connection to the job if the clerks never had to lift anything or reach up over their heads.

Déja vu

[Rockie]

Wow,I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.

I'm not feeling very called out. You have been proven wrong, and even when you go a small distance toward recognizing it you sidetrack yourself into an irrelevant area in an attempt to cloud what is very clear logic. Logic that you still haven't answered my questions on by the way which I find telling. I don't know...maybe it's just me that drives you to irrationality since Understated said exactly the same thing I did and you seemed to accept it.

Whatever...

Anyway, you can count on me to continue to counter BS on this issue whether it comes from you or anybody else. I've spent years trying to get some of the more dogmatic people to see reason and I must admit, it's nigh impossible for some. Even when presented with incontrovertible evidence in the form of actual events the denial continues. Very disturbing behavior from allegedly intelligent professionals who aren't supposed to deny incontrovertible evidence.

[Ah_yeah]

The important point here and the one you simply seem incapable of getting is that if everybody works to 65 their total compensation increases.

False.

Actually I think the important thing for me to understand is that Rockie's persona dominates the age 60 debate on this forum. If he doesn't like the message he will use whatever means neccassary to, drive the unwanted message into confusion, bury it in pages and pages of diatribe, or drive the individual to give up. Which ever comes first.

It's a domination strategy. It's not about free speech, open dialogue or the truth. It's not about facts. It's all about the belief that reality isn't reality. Rather perception is reality. In this alternate reality even numbers add up differently.

Actually, its just about controlling the message.

I get it.

There is method to that madness.

[Fanblade]

Wow,I call you out on your behaviour and in response you intensify it.

1) You have been proven wrong,
2) and even when you go a small distance toward recognizing it you sidetrack yourself into an irrelevant area
3) in an attempt to cloud what is very clear logic.
4) Logic that you still haven't answered my questions on
5) by the way which I find telling.
6) I don't know...maybe it's just me that drives you to irrationality since Understated said exactly the same thing I did and you seemed to accept it.

Whatever...

Anyway,
7)you can count on me to continue to counter BS on this issue whether it comes from you or anybody else.
I've spent years trying to get some of the more dogmatic people to see reason
9) and I must admit, it's nigh impossible for some.
10) Even when presented with incontrovertible evidence in the form of actual events the denial continues.
11) Very disturbing behavior from
12) allegedly intelligent professionals who aren't supposed to deny incontrovertible evidence.

Very very few words in that post that are not for the explicit purpose of discrediting.

And why? I have dared to question the "this is good for everyone dogma"

You can't help yourself can you. Your like a rabid dog when you want someone and or their comments discredited.

Keep digging.

A troll once realizing there is no logic to make the unwanted pest to go away will:


Go after ones reputation, bring into disrepute, disgrace, dishonor, damage the reputation of, blacken the name of, put/show in a bad light, reflect badly on, compromise, stigmatize, smear, tarnish, taint, slur, cause to seem false or unreliable! dishonor, disgrace, shame, humiliate, blame

[Ah_yeah]

Regarding para. 2, My comment may not be "helpful" to your agenda but they are still relevant. Is your coalition seeking to take money from my bank account (line of credit actually) or not ? You see, since people have had the option to stay at the top of the food chain my pay has decreased ~15%. Seventy hour DBM's where you are blocked closer to 67 hours leaves nothing at the end of the month for many pilots. I guess I should be thankful that Air Canada has chosen to eat the surplus rather than create a massive downbid that would put many colleagues on the street....I digress. The past actions of the company and ACPA are what they are but the people you seek to pay damages are individuals like me. One voice in the crowd. So forgive me if I see the need to ask the bank for a second mortgage to pay your clients as a "screwing over". In all sincerity, what would be a more apt term then ?

Unfortunately, by reason of my position as one of the counsel to the litigants, I am not at liberty to get into a discussion about many of the questions that you pose. Some of the other individuals on this forum may be able to address your questions. I can confirm that in the event that the complaints are upheld by the Courts and the Tribunal, the litigants seek the remedy of reinstatement (where possible) and damages. In the previous hearing, ACPA and Air Canada shared the liability in damages equally, and the damages awarded per individual complainant were in the six figure range.

Yes it is understandable the you recuse yourself.
I will add one last note about damages. I would hope that if it gets to hearing damage claims, the judge(s) factor in the career gains the litigants enjoyed prior to the age 60 by the very rule they got quashed. Looking only at the losses after age 60 is hypocritical. I'm curious, were there any litigants under the age of sixty spearheading the mandatory retirement rule change? I know some jumped aboard prior to retirement once the wheels were in motion.
Gawd, the more one ponders this, the more strange the outcomes could look. Ie, who specifically gets the bill. Does the new hire get the bill as well ? After all they could be lobbying ACPA to settle up now or does their silence damn them. If not the new hire, how about those happily retired that aren't litigating ? How about the estates of the deceased ? How about the 60 plusers on the payroll now who are in the ultimate financial sweetspot from the timely abolition ? How about the 200 or so that are litigants...does that insulate from liability ? What if you are Rockie, the alleged lone voice of reason on the list. Should he have to pay given he has tried to move heaven and earth to make the drooling masses see the light before the shovel contacts our heads ?
I'm just saying it's not easy to assess blame. Perhaps if the litigants had started this process 10 years sooner it would be solved by now...wait, see what I just did there ?

[bluemic]

Perhaps if the litigants had started this process 10 years sooner it would be solved by now...

Geez....6 pm out here on my island and once again I have to put aside the juniper juice, lift my bulk off the sofa and shuffle over to the keyboard. Might as well become a "friend of Bill"!

Ten years is a bit of a stretch. But if memory serves, the "litigants" did start the process some 8 years ago.

I'm sure you remember this Ah_yeah, but the ICAO rules concerning "over 60 commanders" changed in (IIRC) 2006. Prior to that date it would have made little sense to "start the process" you mentioned. If you did start it, where would it go? Before the change in 2006, ICAO had said 'no' to international flying (for PICs) after reaching 60. The US observed that guideline. So how then could one keep flying as captain if one couldn't: a) fly overseas and b) fly over US airspace? Unless of course, one really liked pemmican and wanted to have a roster of trips from YEG to YEV.

But after 2006 the world changed. The litigants started the process. ACPA, for whatever reasons, declined to raise its head out of the sand.

And you - the collective 'you' - don't seem to have done much to urge them to do so.

[scratches beard, shuffles back to sofa]

mic

[Rockie]

ICAO will likely raise the age above 65 somewhere around the time Fanblade and Ah-Yeah are reaching that golden age. Depending on their circumstance they may actually want to keep going themselves. Wouldn't that be funny?