equipment bid

[Motto Pilot]

I am pretty sure the "fly past 60" group would lose interest if they were required to take the next seniority number after the most junior pilot that they are affecting. This is a unique situation where "rights" and "ethics" clash.

[. .]

That's certainly the truth. If at age 60 you were allowed to continue flying on, but as the most junior pilot I can't imagine any of these guys would do it. It's the perverse desire to monopolize the best positions for as long as possible that angers people. No one would put up a fight against them if they wanted to be a 767 RP or EMJ FO and be paid accordingly.

[Rockie]

That's what I've been saying. No one gives a shit what happens beneath them on the seniority list, so this crap about making room for new guys is just a bunch of hot air trying to put a selfless face on a selfish effort to stop over 60. It's all about me no matter what side of the debate you're on. But we're shooting ourselves in the foot in putting all our effort into trying to stop what's going to happen regardless. We should be making sure it's implemented in a way that protects the rights of both sides of the issue. And yes, it will be a right to retire over sixty.

[mighty mouse]

Yes, but you gave up that right when you got hired knowing the contract says 60.

[pilotbzh]

You just have to freeze the pension at 60, any contribution past 60 will subsidize the new hires... see how fast they leave and go to retirement...
It's not a question of the right to fly past 60, It's guys approaching 60 unable to survive on they retirement fond.....used to make good money and unable to go back to 10-12k a month....all about money....

[Rockie]

Yes, but you gave up that right when you got hired knowing the contract says 60.

Oh? When the human rights tribunal says otherwise where is that argument then? And it's only a matter of time before they do say that which is what I am (futilely it seems) trying to get you people to realize.

[Norfolk]

Good luck with that.

[flyguycanuk]

Rockie - Can you give a quick summary of the human rights tribunal. When did it start, where is it at, and when are we expecting to hear the results?

Thanks.

[Martin Tamme]

Rockie - Can you give a quick summary of the human rights tribunal. When did it start, where is it at, and when are we expecting to hear the results?

Thanks.

The hearings started in front of the Tribunal in January 2007 and lasted until March 2007. The Tribunal released its decision in August 2007, and ruled against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a Judicial Review with the Federal Court (similar to appeal for those who are not law savy), stating that the Tribunal erred in law.

I don't believe that any dates have been selected thus for the Judicial Review. Regardless of who wins in Federal Court, it will most probably go to the Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Rockie]

The CHRT ruled that the plaintiffs in this particular case were not discriminated against because at the time they retired age 60 was normal throughout the world. Those plaintiffs are the ones dragging this through the court system now and it will be a long, expensive fight for all involved. But assuming ACPA wins this case which they may, what then?

Well, then the next challenge comes up to the CHRT, except now the normal age for retirement is 65. How do you think the CHRT will rule then? How about the challenge after that?

I think it's pretty obvious which way this is eventually going to go.

[mighty mouse]

Yes, but you gave up that right when you got hired knowing the contract says 60.

Oh? When the human rights tribunal says otherwise where is that argument then? And it's only a matter of time before they do say that which is what I am (futilely it seems) trying to get you people to realize.

But this has nothing to do with human rights, nobody said " your a pilot you must retire at 60"... in fact what happened was a group of pilots didn't want to have to work past 60 and they struck a contract with that BENEFIT. But they agreed in contract to retire at 60 and now someone whats to take all the benefit of that agreement and when its his turn to pay hes says he wont live up to his agreement.

[Lost in Saigon]

But this has nothing to do with human rights, nobody said " your a pilot you must retire at 60"... in fact what happened was a group of pilots didn't want to have to work past 60 and they struck a contract with that BENEFIT. But they agreed in contract to retire at 60 and now someone whats to take all the benefit of that agreement and when its his turn to pay hes says he wont live up to his agreement.

You are partially right. Age 60 retirement is a negotiated benefit that should remain in place. A pilot who wants to work past 60 is not saying he wants to stop anyone else from retiring at 60.

But this is where Human Rights come in. You can't tell some one that they must stop working just because they had a birthday. Especially when others still enjoy the same right. It doesn't matter that you put it in a contract. It doesn't make it legal, right, or fair.

[Lost in Saigon]

Vilven and Kelly retied before ICAO changed the rule to 65. As was said earlier, they are appealing it on grounds that the CHRT made errors in their decision.

There are currently 44 other Air Canada Pilots who have also filed cases against Air Canada. I believe that they all retired or will retire after ICAO changed the rule to 65.

It is pretty obvious to me that when these cases are heard they will win. But they will not be heard until the final decision of the original case is released. This is because if Vilven and Kelly win, there will be no need to hear the other 44 cases.

If Vilven and Kelly loose, then the other 44 cases will proceed. At least that is my understanding of what's happening.

Most people affected by this issue have been become too emotionally involved. You have to sit back and realize that this is now a Human Rights issue and that the Laws of Canada will decide the outcome.

Age discrimination is treated just as seriously as sex discrimination or race discrimination. Just imagine if Air Canada said you could not be a pilot if you are female. Or you could not get hired if you are less than 5’6” tall. These were realities at one point in time, but times have changed.

[Martin Tamme]

It is pretty obvious to me that when these cases are heard they will win. But they will not be heard until the final decision of the original case is released. This is because if Vilven and Kelly win, there will be no need to hear the other 44 cases.

Mike:

This case has so many twists & turns, nobody can make any predictions. Vilven & Kelly are appealing on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law by using the wrong comparator group when determining the normal age of retirement (The Tribunal used the normal retirement ages of the worlwide legacy carriers). They are arguing that Canadian Human Rights stop at the Canadian border, i.e. you can't use the normal age of non-Canadian airlines, because they are not subject to Canadian Human Rights.

For example, if China or India allowed children to work in coal mines, would not give a company the right to do the same on Canadian soil. Or if a certain country requires all people over the age of 55 to retire, that comparator should not be used in Canada. They argue that the comparator group has to remain within Canadian jurisdiction.

ACPA's lawyer actually argued during the proceedings that the comparator group has to remain Canadian (based on a 1983 CHRT Decision). What if all worlwide countries allowed their pilots to work till they drop? Does that mean Canadian pilots could do same? The CHRT has no jurisdiction over other countries' Human Rights. As such, how can they use other countries Human Rights when determining what age our pilots should be retiring at? It was in fact Air Canada's lawyer that argued that the Tribunal should use worldwide legacy carriers as a comparator group - not ACPA.

Therefore, if the Federal Court rules for Vilven & Kelly, it will agree with ACPA, and turn the matter back to the CHRT to come up with another comparator. ICAO & the new US law (Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act) are moot in those circumstances.

Should Vilven & Kelly lose their case, then the next group of 44 will have to show that the comparator group has a retirement age other than 60 (Mind you, they are arguing that there should be no age restriction at all - Forget about 65).

The next fight will be who is comparable to Air Canada. I could see American Airlines, BA & Lufthansa, because they have comparable retirement packages (pension & medical benefits), but most US airlines do not. It will be interesting to see if the Tribunal will accept a US Air or likeminded airline (remember they already excluded Westjet, Jazz, Transat & Skyservice), because they have nothing in common with Air Canada. If most US airlines are excluded from the comparator group (because their pensions are atrocious), it will only leave the European & Asian carriers.

All I can say is that this matter will not be resolved within the foreseeable future... unless of course the Air Canada pilots want it to change.

[the original tony]

just a quick question, not to poo poo the 60 rule debate, but,
in all reality what are the odds of a new bid coming out sooner than the 6 months and lay offs happening?
i just started a few months back and not too many behind me.
Brutal way to finish line indoc on the 767 and be told about layoffs. and more 67's being parked. Rats!!
thanks for any input, i know it's anyones guess,
but almost everybody knows more about this than i.........
best of luck to all in the business, AC and all.

Tony

[Rockie]

Complicated indeed. So complicated it's easy for the eyes to drift off the ball. There has to be a comparison employee group for the CHRT to look to, and if they have already discounted other Canadian carriers then they have to look outside the country. Anyplace they look outside the country they will be looking at ICAO which is 65. This isn't a case of child labour in China. 65 is eminently reasonable, and inevitable. Shouldn't we be planning for that day instead of wasting time, money and effort trying to stop it?

[circlingfor69]

Umm ....no

[Rockie]

Why not? You would rather it hit you in the back of the head and catch you totally unprepared?

[Martin Tamme]

just a quick question, not to poo poo the 60 rule debate, but,
in all reality what are the odds of a new bid coming out sooner than the 6 months and lay offs happening?
i just started a few months back and not too many behind me.
Brutal way to finish line indoc on the 767 and be told about layoffs. and more 67's being parked. Rats!!
thanks for any input, i know it's anyones guess,
but almost everybody knows more about this than i.........
best of luck to all in the business, AC and all.

Tony

Experience has shown that there will be a reduction bid with many slated for layoffs prior to the contractual negotiations. This is to place pressure on the pilot group to accept concessions. Nevertheless, although many may see themselves designated as surplus, it will only be a paper exercise. In reality, they will remain on until the 2009 Summer/Fall bid (after negotiations), which will show an increase again.

[the original tony]

thanks for the reply MT.
So as you say the surplus will be shown on paper, but there "shouldn't" be any physical layoffs.
I would think it very $$ for them to layoff, downgrade, retrain and all the good stuff that goes with reductions.
I can handle being at the bottom of the list for as long as needed, but the work, i do need.
thanks again

tony

[dwightschroot]

I think what Original Tony is referring to is the rumour that layoffs will happen as a result of the potential bid in July or August. If they say they are going to park the 767-200's and reduce routes, such as Osaka and Rome, possibly more to come, then wouldnt it make sense that the next bid be a reduction bid and thus the guys at the bottom be laid off as a result of these actions. Not having anything to do with a the contract in 2009 negotiations, but as a direct result of the response to high fuel prices. What is a general rule of thumb per aircraft, maybe 7-9 crews equalling about 14-18 pilots, not including RPs? Even if there are retirements planned as usual there arent that many more until May 2009. I know, I know very doom and gloom, but if there is going to be a Equipment bid so close to the current one, only 2-3 months apart, isnt it fair to guess that its going to be a very significant one? I too am close to the bottom and dont have hundreds of people above me and am very curious. It will definatley be a very interesting next 6-12 months that is for certain.

[TAT]

Last thing I read that was related to a pole taken amongst ACPA people showed that ~74% of ACPA voters showed not in favor for advancing the retirement age past 60. So regardless of any decision handed out by the tribunal the contract has to be voted on and changed by its members. Contracts can be in contradiction to the Labour code if it is agreed upon! Seen it many times..

[Martin Tamme]

wouldnt it make sense that the next bid be a reduction bid and thus the guys at the bottom be laid off as a result of these actions.

No, instead of reducing the workforce by 10%, they'll end up reducing the DMMs by the same percentage (instead of working 85 hours, everyone will be reduced to 78). As stated above, it cost $$$ to layoff, due to the retraining that is associated with the furloughs. Nevertheless, you will see the reduction on paper as a negotiation tactic to scare the junior pilots, hoping that they will pressure the MEC to make concessions. They've used this tactic some many times in the past (with the last time being CCAA: 317 were shown surplus - It wasn't even close), that history is bound to repeat itself, because this tactic always seems to works.

[Rockie]

Last thing I read that was related to a pole taken amongst ACPA people showed that ~74% of ACPA voters showed not in favor for advancing the retirement age past 60. So regardless of any decision handed out by the tribunal the contract has to be voted on and changed by its members. Contracts can be in contradiction to the Labour code if it is agreed upon! Seen it many times..

ACPA membership does not vote on Canadian law. If it is deemed a violation of human rights then there is nothing ACPA can do about it even if 100% vote in favour of age 60...which they won't.

[Dockjock]

The case is a circle:

Right to retire at 60- right to work past 60- rights of junior pilots to move up seniority list based on contractual retirement age- back to start.

The plaintiffs have an easy case in the easiest court in the world, the CHRC. It is easy to argue your "rights" have been violated because in the HRC world there are only rights- no responsibilities or ethics, or contracts, or reality. Witness the current HRC debacle involving Mark Steyn, Macleans magazine, and Ezra Levant. The HRC is a joke, and it scares the crap out of me that my future is going to essentially be decided by an entity that likely (or at least hopefully) won't exist or won't have any power once it's utter uselessness is revealed.

In any case, one cannot grant an unlimited retirement age (based only on merit or medical status presumably) without consequently infringing on the rights of every pilot junior to move up the list.

But, let's take Rockie's view and say yes, unlimited retirement age is coming. Otherwise your "rights" have been violated. The case for age 65 is a red herring, or at best disingenuous, because you cannot argue your human rights are violated by a set retirement age at 60, and subsequently agree to age 65. It is 60 or unlimited. The only way they can force you out is a failure in the sim, or in the medical.

This presents several problems, notably:

-the power of check pilots to end a pilot's career. And then get the union involved. Does the union fight for reinstatement based on x, y, z? How is proficiency truly graded in the unlimited retirement age world, when an unsat results in the end. Not exactly a gold watch on your last day eh?
-the power of a medical doctor to end a pilot's career (based on old age? based on what? hemmorhoids?)
-the airline's crew planning. How do you create a crew plan if you don't know when anyone is going to leave? I suppose you will have to give 18 months notice of retirement above age 60...you don't exactly replace a 777 captain on 4 weeks notice.

Anyhow I think it stinks and no, I'm not gonna just let it happen and hope to shape the outcome. I want to fight it because at Air Canada, going beyond 60 is a violation of my rights under the contract, and I don't want the kangaroo court CHRC anywhere near me in any case.