Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

[Say Altitude]

Classic. All insults and no substance.

So let me just clarify:

You support the ability to fly past 60 but you are against a change to the CA that would see a redistribution of the pie and working conditions based on a new process that does not, let me repeat, DOES NOT use age as the sole determinant of retirement. Talk about hypocrisy.

Essentially you want to keep flying and stay at the top of the heap and reap all the benefits of seniority at the expense of the junior members and brand anyone who says otherwise a heretic.

I'm quite sure it's been addressed in earlier posts and threads that it is perfectly legal to amend the working conditions and collective agreements in such as way so as to maintain the concept of deferred compensation.

Sure it's not about greed.

[vic777]

And there are plenty of ways to make that happen that doesn't solely rely on age based retirement and still allows you to keep working for the "love of flying". You'll just do it as EMJ F/O's doing triple LGA turns starting at 0600 and a seniority number of 3100.

Don't for a second be under any illusion that if FP60 stays that you're staying senior.

Say Altitude, I can't think of even one possible way for this to be implemented as you suggest, please give me a hint. You do realize that AC is primarily interested in generating money for it's major shareholders, how would any of your suggestions facilitate that?

The "New World Order", is that a B777 Captain will reach Sixty years of age and bid for his next months flying, another B777 block. How would you suggest dealing with that in a non-discriminatory way, that doesn't cost AC any money?

Similarly ...an EA32 Captain will reach Sixty years of age and bid for his next months flying, another EA32 block. How would you suggest dealing with that in a non-discriminatory way, that doesn't cost AC any money?

Why don't you come up with an idea as to how ACPA can score the windfall gains for the Pilots?

(Downing tools and ordering a pay raise, comes to mind.)

[accumulous]

So let me just clarify:

You support the ability to fly past 60 but you are against a change to the CA that would see a redistribution of the pie and working conditions based on a new process that does not, let me repeat, DOES NOT use age as the sole determinant of retirement. Talk about hypocrisy.

You haven't clarified anything.

Just get busy and do it. Get out there and just go ahead and follow through. This is the wrong venue.

Here’s a structure that will work for you.

Write up your scheme, and get specific with ALL the numbers.

Take your paper to a special edition of LEC road shows.

Make sure it is advance noticed on the LEC menus.

Put out a special e-mail invite to all AC pilots over 50.

Pilots over 60 are not allowed to attend any more so you’ll have the undivided attention of all the current pilots who stand to be affected, which is what really counts in the here and now.

Be very clear about exactly what it is you want from all the pilots.

Make sure there are enough copies to go around. Leave lots of space for comments.

Have an editorial rep from the ACPA Journal there to run a story.

Invite the top brass of ALPA as special guests for their input, as well as the top Union or Association executives of all the other Canadian carriers. Don’t forget to disallow their over age 60 active pilot union executives from attending. Put that right on the RSVP. They need to have a clear picture of the stark reality that is AC, if they don’t already.

Just do it.

[Rockie]

So let me just clarify:

You support the ability to fly past 60 but you are against a change to the CA that would see a redistribution of the pie and working conditions based on a new process that does not, let me repeat, DOES NOT use age as the sole determinant of retirement. Talk about hypocrisy.

That isn't what you said. This is:

Do you REALLY think that if FP60 stays, that the contract will not change to make sure you end up BOTL?

What you were talking about in your previous rant were punitive measures, not changes to the CA to make things more equitable. Punitive measures have to be based on something, and since it's the FP60 guys you're pissed off at what else other than age would you base these penalties on?

You need to start reading things more closely. How we distribute our pay is entirely up to us and if the majority want to change it so the pay levels are more even then that's what will happen. But get the thought of penalizing people who stay past 60 out of your head, because that is an age based distinction and it will not fly.

This issue didn't just pop up yesterday. While the complete lack of information from the union is partially to blame, you possess a brain and are presumably able to use it so being as uninformed as you are at this stage is inexcusable.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

So let me just clarify: ... I'm quite sure it's been addressed in earlier posts and threads that it is perfectly legal to amend the working conditions and collective agreements in such as way so as to maintain the concept of deferred compensation.

You might wish to do yourself the favour of reading some of those threads before starting to foam off with your postulations. In particular, take a read through the extended debate between Brick Head and Understated, where after being pushed and pushed to show how any such proposal could withstand a court challenge, Brick Head simply resigned without answering.

Unlike you, he has a thorough knowledge of the subject, appears to have been directly involved inside the scenes, is fluent on all of the nuances of the collective agreement, supports his propositions with facts and evidence, and still came up empty.

So how would it work with your proposal? On one bid a pilot is awarded the B777C position and on the next bid he is awarded the EMJ F/O position? What would be the trigger for the change, if not age? Seniority? On one bid he is in the top 100 and in the next bid he is in the bottom 100? Get real.

[Localizer]

Say Altitude ...

You're right on the money. They want to remain at the top of the heap and keep collecting off the backs of junior people while enjoying summer and peak vacations, and to top it all off .. they want you to pay all their bills to keep it that way.

Best pay, best positions, best vacation, best of all things ... that's FP60. Keep the party rockin'!

[tailgunner]

How ironic that accummulus lays out a plan to democratically change the CA, yet the group that he defends, and I dare say represents, has done the exact opposite.
What he surely must have meant was...ride the wave of retirements , wish those ahead of you a pleasant time on the golf course. Surf to the top of the pay structure and lifestyle, and then when it is your turn to go you...stamp your feet, hire a lawyer who has a personal stake in the shennanigans, find a tribunal (kangaroo court) and sue, sue sue! Let those remaining bear the burdens and smile all the way to the bank....

[Rockie]

HEY...look over here.

While we've been spending millions trying to defeat 60 year old Air Canada pilots the government went and changed the law WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION.

Holy crap.

Now what are we going to do?

[Norwegianwood]

HEY...look over here.


Now what are we going to do?

Maybe another vote is in order to set the record straight

[accumulous]

How ironic that accummulus lays out a plan to democratically change the CA, yet the group that he defends, and I dare say represents, has done the exact opposite.
What he surely must have meant was...ride the wave of retirements , wish those ahead of you a pleasant time on the golf course. Surf to the top of the pay structure and lifestyle, and then when it is your turn to go you...stamp your feet, hire a lawyer who has a personal stake in the shennanigans, find a tribunal (kangaroo court) and sue, sue sue! Let those remaining bear the burdens and smile all the way to the bank....

That’s not true and it’s suggested in good faith. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. No airline in North America has changed their collective agreement to nail their senior pilots because ultimately everybody will be a senior pilot. They all know that. It took them all about 5 nanoseconds to figure that one out.

You can rant on about motives and all the other stuff on your tar brush but you’re just barking up the wrong tree. You need to get a lot more information about what all the other airlines in North America are doing, and if you are going to be the one to be different then you need to get the numbers and you need to lay it out. That is your right.

It’s not complicated. If you want to change the collective agreement, you have the perfect right to give that a go. That’s all. Just do it. Specifically you need to discuss it with the Union and you need to discuss it with the senior active pilots, you need to see the other collective agreements of every airline in North America because they all go past 60. You could not ask for a better sample than that.

If you absolutely have to make sure that things change for yourself in relation to every other pilot in North America when you hit 60, then just go for it.

[Morry Bund]

Say Altitude ... You're right on the money. They want to remain at the top of the heap and keep collecting off the backs of junior people while enjoying summer and peak vacations, and to top it all off .. they want you to pay all their bills to keep it that way. Best pay, best positions, best vacation, best of all things ... that's FP60. Keep the party rockin'!

Please, Sam, say your lines again one more time. Give me that rhetoric one more time. Repeating it will make it true.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
--Joni Mitchell

[Doug Moore]

I wrote this on another thread and I think that it bears repeating:

“Much has been made of pilots getting to the top of the list by virtue of those ahead of them having already retired at 60. And now, horror of horrors, someone wants to change the rules in order to enjoy the fruits of seniority that has been achieved purely as a result of others retiring before them. This change has been coming for a long time – and it has to happen sometime. I can remember senior pilots fighting mandatory retirement back in the 1980’s – and they lost. Others after them also fought and lost. There has always been someone willing to take up the fight and when mandatory retirement based on age is finally relegated to the history books then yes, the lay of the land will have changed. Just as when we were hired, timing is everything – and none of us has control over timing.

Mandatory retirement, however, has not been the sole determinant of advancement. I do know that pilots quit, pilots get fired, pilots get sick, pilots die and pilots do retire early. In terms of career progression, yes, we all benefited from forced retirement – but progression on the backs of those force-retired doesn’t make it right. When mandatory retirement is expunged pilots will still quit, pilots will still get fired, pilots will still get sick, pilots will still die and pilots will still retire – some earlier, some later, but everybody will be in lock-step on this same, albeit new ladder. When the dust settles, it will not be the end of the world, as we know it.

“Fly until you die.” That’s a nice catchy phrase but hardly reflective, in my view, of the aspirations of the pilots who are fighting mandatory retirement. We have no data from which to predict what will happen but I suspect that the very large majority of those who wish to fly past 60 will do so only until the novelty wears off - and then they will prepare for when they want to retire – and I suspect the overwhelming majority will want to retire as opposed to those who might want to die in the seat. Will there be those who will hang in there until removed due to medical problems, incompetence or death? Yes, there will always be birds of that feather but they will be a rare bird indeed. Instead, think about those who, given the opportunity in the past, have chosen early retirement prior to 60. There have always been, and there always will be guys who want to go early, particularly absent any early retirement penalty. This fly till you die scare tactic is a red herring thrown out in the midst of the hysteria of those who see their career grinding to a halt. Why not concentrate on negotiating an environment amenable both to those who want to leave early as well as to those desirous of going past 60? Win-Win.”

It is not difficult for me to understand the dismay and the agitation that the junior members express about the end of mandatory retirement and how they see it affecting their careers going forward. I am sure that I would have felt the same way when I was first starting out.

However, this issue has been silently stewing for decades, it bubbled to the surface again in 2003 and now it is in full boil. Thus have we all had more than a few years to get past our gut feelings on the subject and move towards a more objective analysis of what the future can hold.

Unfortunately, there are some for whom even the contemplation of change is so difficult that their disavowal alone destroys any hope (for them) that change can be made for the good. For those few so afflicted one can only hope that as adults they can learn to work through their anger and denial, and begin to consider realistic solutions for what appears to be an inevitable cessation of mandatory retirement based on age.

In my view, this change will have a similar impact on advancement to that experienced by those who have suffered through a 3 or 4-year lay-off; with the difference being that while advancement up the seniority ladder may be slower for that 3 or 4 year period, at least you’ll still be working and earning Pensionable Service while the old seniority ladder is replaced by a new one. And remember, as I wrote above, very few will actually work “forever”, rather, pilots will still quit, pilots will still get fired, pilots will still get sick, pilots will still die and pilots will still retire – some earlier, some later, but everybody will move up and be in lock-step on this same, albeit new ladder.

You owe it to yourselves to work together towards an end-result that you helped to create. It’s that age-old (pun intended) question: “Do you choose to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?”

[Understated]

You owe it to yourselves to work together towards an end-result that you helped to create.

Very, very difficult, Doug, in the circumstances, because we are dealing with litigation for which a negotiated settlement cannot be final. Nobody has the authority to come to a final agreement when the interests are determined by statutory rights. That is what differentiates this dispute from a contract negotiation or even from a civil law suit.

Let's suppose that I, as one of the Age 60 Complainants, is more than accommodating. Let's suppose that my personal desire is to simply stay employed for as little as one extra year, to get 35 years of pension credits instead of 34. Suppose that I might even consider bidding down to do it, so that I minimize the adverse impact on others working for the best five years (that I already have). I can't negotiate that. I can only assert my legal rights to object to ACPA's insistence that I must end my work at age 60.

Not only that, but even if all of us agreed to make compromises in our expectations, the law is an "all or nothing" governor. Either age discrimination is illegal or it is not. Either we win everything or we win nothing. Either age 60 holds or it does not. And even if all of the existing complainants were to agree to some form of compromise, that doesn't limit some new complainant from demanding and getting what the law allows him to have, namely unlimited employment without age discrimination. So what you have suggested is a logical ideal, but one that is almost impossible to realize in the existing rubric.

And of course, that says nothing about the other side making compromises. Judging from the recent posts, including those on this page, not only do a number of pilots still disagree that any change should be made, but many still haven't got a clue that their continued denial of the legal realities are undermining their own strengths as a result of their continued support of legal action to defend a position that is indefensible.

The upshot then is that the "winner take all scenario," the only realistic scenario given the legal framework, is about to be decided. Given the sequence of pending decisions, the Tribunal decision and the CIRB decision, and the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption, the angst and division is all but guaranteed to continue, because nobody can stop it, absent a dedicated effort by ACPA to embrace and manage the pending changes instead of fighting them. My guess is that that isn't going to happen either.

[PilotFlying]

You owe it to yourselves to work together towards an end-result that you helped to create. It’s that age-old (pun intended) question: “Do you choose to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?”

Hi Doug,

I enjoyed reading your post; it brings (or returns) to light the fact that this is not a new issue, and has been something on the minds of pilots nearing retirement for decades. As a member of the "junior" camp, I can appreciate what you are saying and actually agree with most of it. I try to flash forward a few decades and put myself in the shoes of someone about to retire, and can't honestly say I would feel much different.

Not that it will make any difference here on this forum but, in the spirit of "being part of the solution", one question I would honestly like to hear a genuine answer to from pilots supporting a revised retirement age is how they feel about an implementation that would see a revised retirement age applied to all pilots hired in the future and grandfathering the existing policy for all those currently employed. If this fight is truly in the spirit of the greater good of human rights, besides, of course, not directly benefiting those imminently retiring, does this not seem like a perfect, and fair, solution so as not to negatively affect anyone's career?

Personally, this seems like such an obvious solution, yet it is very rarely discussed. All other solutions I seem to find suggested are of an "all or nothing" nature. Please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,

Chris

[vic777]

grandfathering the existing policy for all those currently employed.

There's no precedent for that, not to say we couldn't try it, but our contracts typically are only for a three or four year period. The whole contract is up for negotiation on every renewal. No one would expect that a negotiated pay cut would apply only to those not yet hired while those on the property could keep their present rate. The complaint that is before the courts is that specific individuals have had their rights trampled on. The court will rule that this must be made right for these individuals and all who follow. Those who are against the FlyPast60 movement tend to get confused by their own rhetoric and propaganda regarding the complainants motives. The complaints and motivations of the FlyPast60 group has always been simple and crystal clear. [insert cheap shot rhetoric and propaganda here] You're suggesting that a Pilot who may be only Forty years old today should be segregated against because of his age in Twenty years when he becomes Sixty. What if Lincoln had said, "I will free the slaves, but those who are presently slaves, must remain so".

[Rockie]

Not that it will make any difference here on this forum but, in the spirit of "being part of the solution", one question I would honestly like to hear a genuine answer to from pilots supporting a revised retirement age is how they feel about an implementation that would see a revised retirement age applied to all pilots hired in the future and grandfathering the existing policy for all those currently employed. If this fight is truly in the spirit of the greater good of human rights, besides, of course, not directly benefiting those imminently retiring, does this not seem like a perfect, and fair, solution so as not to negatively affect anyone's career?

I can understand and appreciate the compromise solution you are attempting to suggest PilotFlying, but you are still thinking like a person who is being wronged. The solution, if one is even necessary, is modifying the contract to suit the majority as it applies to this new reality. It is not to deny a right to work to a segment of the pilot group because they had the misfortune of getting hired before a certain date.

People seem to think of this only in terms of delaying their rightful advancement into the next higher seat. They will still advance, but now they have the right to build more pensionable time and work until they want to, not when they are told to. Anywhere else but here that is considered a good thing, and I am disappointed so much of our group lacks the foresight to see that.

[Doug Moore]

[Not that it will make any difference here on this forum but, in the spirit of "being part of the solution", one question I would honestly like to hear a genuine answer to from pilots supporting a revised retirement age is how they feel about an implementation that would see a revised retirement age applied to all pilots hired in the future and grandfathering the existing policy for all those currently employed.

Personally, this seems like such an obvious solution, yet it is very rarely discussed ... Please let me know your thoughts.

Hi Chris,

Actually Chris, your suggestion does make a difference because it is a reasonable comment. I also consider it to be an honest “obvious solution” but unfortunately I also believe it to be not a workable one (if that is the correct word) for a couple of reasons that I can think of.

Firstly, grandfathering the existing policy for all those presently working would continue a policy that has already been deemed discriminatory. I suspect that the Court would not even entertain such an implementation – if something is declared illegal today then it is illegal from today forward and implementation can only be applied uniformly, unilaterally and immediately.

Secondly, presuming that your solution was to be applied, it would only lead to conflict further down the line – possibly 20 or 25 years from now. Eventually, you would see the grandfathered pilot forced to retire and the pilot immediately junior to him able to work past age 60. More grief – which I suspect would involve more than a few pilots.

I believe, and will be most surprised if this is not the case, that a date will be established from which all pilots will be entitled to re-instatement. V&K have already been re-instated so it is difficult to contemplate a different application of the law towards the many others following in their footsteps. The only question is a date and a real wild card is, will the Courts declare that this date applies only to those who have filed a complaint or to every pilot who has been force-retired after that date? Whatever the case, no one knows what that date will be, but once determined, I suspect that all affected pilots will be treated equally.

In my view, one has to get one’s head around the reality that mandatory retirement based on age is on the way out. It’s a societal ground-shift and Parliament is changing the law to make it fact. Blaming those, or worse, being hostile towards those who are on the leading edge of this change is counter-productive. So when I say “you owe it to yourselves to work together towards an end-result that you helped to create” I mean that both sides, and in particular the junior guys should make every effort to get out in front of this change and make it work for all involved.

I understand, as Understated correctly pointed out, that this is no easy task, considering the polarization of both sides, not to mention the pitched battles taking place on the legal front. But it is the junior camp that has the most to lose here, and not for the reasons they believe. Yes, advancement will likely slow for a period of time while the transition from mandatory to voluntary retirement takes place. However, from what I read here there are those who are quite willing to shoot themselves in the foot for the simple satisfaction of shooting the FP60’s in their feet. Remember that the great majority of these FP60 guys will only be sticking around for a few years, if that, and then they’ll be gone and one day – sooner than many may understand – it will be the now not so junior guy who has to live with the fallout of the earlier scorched-earth policy.

There’s much more that can be said but that’s it for tonight. Thanks Chris, and Understated for your reasoned and respectful postings.

Cheers,

[Understated]

Not that it will make any difference here on this forum but, in the spirit of "being part of the solution", one question I would honestly like to hear a genuine answer to from pilots supporting a revised retirement age is how they feel about an implementation that would see a revised retirement age applied to all pilots hired in the future and grandfathering the existing policy for all those currently employed. If this fight is truly in the spirit of the greater good of human rights, besides, of course, not directly benefiting those imminently retiring, does this not seem like a perfect, and fair, solution so as not to negatively affect anyone's career?

Thanks, Chris. There are two reasons why your proposed solution is not feasible. First, it doesn't comply with the CHRA by reason of violating the age discrimination provisions. Second, it is almost certainly too late for any solutions that don't allow for the complete abolition of any reference to age 60.

The second reason flows from last week's Federal Court decision. What the majority of pilots on this Forum apparently fail to appreciate is that the issue is no longer an issue. The Court emphatically rejected the mandatory retirement exemption, and the Court's decision is now binding upon the Tribunal. That means that the pending liability complaints that must be decided by the Tribunal have already been decided. The Tribunal is legally bound to find that the termination of all those pilots' employment, including all of the pilots in the Thwaites proceeding, violated the statute.

In other words, there is no more argument, subject to either the Federal Court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada overturning last week's decision. In the meantime, the remaining outstanding complaints should proceed almost directly to a remedy hearing. That remedy hearing will contemplate damages and reinstatement, based on the evidence.

What about that appeal? An appeal does not stay the Federal Court decision The Tribunal must proceed on the basis of the decision to find that the complaints are sustained. Only if or when the decision is overturned does that change the law. But we are a long way from that. It takes almost a year to get a hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal, and even longer for the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, the Tribunal must continue to hear and decide the remaining complaints in their totality.

Regarding your suggestion, the starting point is now reinstatement of employment with full seniority rights and full bidding rights for all pilots. Any adjustments must now be made without reference to age. Period.

[PilotFlying]

What if Lincoln had said, "I will free the slaves, but those who are presently slaves, must remain so".

Thanks, vic777; however, I don't really think the misfortune those forced to retire were faced with is in any way comparable to that faced by those subjected to slavery.

The solution, if one is even necessary, is modifying the contract to suit the majority as it applies to this new reality. It is not to deny a right to work to a segment of the pilot group because they had the misfortune of getting hired before a certain date.

The solution I propose offers the same - the only difference is it would be implemented over the course of a generation, starting with a minority and eventually becoming a majority. The solution you suggest would make the same change effective in an instantaneous decision. The same outcome, but over a different time frame.

I also consider it to be an honest “obvious solution” but unfortunately I also believe it to be not a workable one (if that is the correct word) for a couple of reasons that I can think of.

Thanks, Doug. I can also see many ways in which my solution may not be a workable one. I suppose I am indirectly attempting to see where those in support of this movement stand when the beneficiaries of such a change wouldn't necessarily be themselves. In other words, are we really fighting for the "greater good" of human rights.

Blaming those, or worse, being hostile towards those who are on the leading edge of this change is counter-productive.

I agree. There is no place for hostility toward our peers and, for many of us, our mentors. Sadly, there has been far more of this than I would like to see. All I think we can fairly ask for is for BOTH sides of the debate to put themselves into the shoes of the other in order to gain some perspective of our respective arguments. We have all either been there or will one day be there.

Cheers,

Chris

[PilotFlying]

The Court last week stated emphatically that the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against age discrimination is not constitutional.

Thanks, Understated - I wasn't yet aware of the details of this ruling. To be honest, I haven't really been following the tribunal/court process in any great detail. Most of my comments are based on my own opinions, which will stand regardless of the decision. At the end of the day, my opinions don't mean squat in this whole process, but my intentions are really just to gain a bit of perspective on the other side of the debate - in other words, what is driving this fight.

I hope that all parties involved will be able to find a quick and seamless way to transition to whatever decision is the final one so that we can all just get back to flying airplanes with our friends and colleagues and move on with our lives and careers.

Cheers,

Chris

[vic777]

- in other words, what is driving this fight.

Don't be cute ... the fight has always been about jobs and job satisfaction and lifestyle and money and age discrimination in varying degrees with each individual hinging around the issue of forced retirement. And of course the very same reasons apply to each side of the debate ... all parties are after the same thing. The senior Pilot wants to stay on so as to get "more" ... the junior Pilot wants to move up faster in order to get "more". All Pilots are operating with the same motives, we all know this and we have always all known this. So drop the "dumb, I just don't understand attitude". If you insist on calling the Senior Pilot "greedy", that's fine ... but the junior Pilot is just as "greedy", if you can't realize this ... you are lying to yourself, which is a common human condition.

vic777 wrote:
What if Lincoln had said, "I will free the slaves, but those who are presently slaves, must remain so".

Thanks, vic777; however, I don't really think the misfortune those forced to retire were faced with is in any way comparable to that faced by those subjected to slavery.

This is where I am losing patience, the example was an attempt to show you the error of your "Grandfathering", approach. You know what I meant, stop with the "dumb, innocent" attitude, already.

The change is imminent.
It was obvious Six years ago that this change was coming.
ACPA could only come up with a stalling tactic to benefit a certain elite portion of their group.
A tremendous win-win opportunity and participation in the windfall gains was lost in order to attempt a win for a small elite portion of the group.
We are who we are, and we must pay the price.

[LeadingEdge]

- in other words, what is driving this fight.

Don't be cute ... the fight has always been about jobs and job satisfaction and lifestyle and money and age discrimination in varying degrees with each individual hinging around the issue of forced retirement. And of course the very same reasons apply to each side of the debate ... all parties are after the same thing. The senior Pilot wants to stay on so as to get "more" ... the junior Pilot wants to move up faster in order to get "more". All Pilots are operating with the same motives, we all know this and we have always all known this. So drop the "dumb, I just don't understand attitude". If you insist on calling the Senior Pilot "greedy", that's fine ... but the junior Pilot is just as "greedy", if you can't realize this ... you are lying to yourself, which is a common human condition.

vic777 wrote:
What if Lincoln had said, "I will free the slaves, but those who are presently slaves, must remain so".

Thanks, vic777; however, I don't really think the misfortune those forced to retire were faced with is in any way comparable to that faced by those subjected to slavery.

This is where I am losing patience, the example was an attempt to show you the error of your Grandfathering", approach. You know what I meant, stop with the "dumb" attitude already.

The difference between you and the Junior guy is that you have already had your time at the trough (thanks to the people who retired ahead of you), and now you want to steal his turn. The statement, "well you can just fly till you die too" - to make up for the lost wages, is arrogant and full of assumptions. You are accusing a Junior Pilot of being greedy, just because they don't want to stay in the poverty group for an additional few years, while you haul down the big salary for as long as you want. Hardly the same level of greed...

[vic777]

Hardly the same level of greed...

OK, so now we're arguing about "levels of greed", which may be how the debate should really be framed. I submit that all Pilots have the same level of greed. Our pay system however has always given more to some and less to others. Because the ACPA elite was all "bent out of shape", by their own level of greed, they missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to score the windfall gains for the Pilots and increase everyone's pay check.

Let's accept the fact that all Pilots are equally greedy ... if we don't at least operate under this realization ... if we don't at least accept this fact ... we can't move forward united and get more from our greedy employers.

ACPA has to fight for the group as a whole and not just for the greedy little elite that controls it.

[rudder]

Our pay system however has always given more to some and less to others. Because the ACPA elite was all "bent out of shape", by their own level of greed, they missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to score the windfall gains for the Pilots and increase everyone's pay check.

ACPA has to fight for the group as a whole and not just for the greedy little elite that controls it.

Does status pay work? Well, Jazz is paying a bunch of dash 8 pilots six figure salaries. And yes, that would mean that there are pilots that individually could have a higher income level in an equipment based pay system. But as a group it is clear that the pot is bigger and the average standard of living is higher for the Jazz pilot group as a whole by rejecting the ideology that some flying assignments have greater value than others.

Why promote a system that by design creates a 'haves vs have-nots' conflict when it could be a system entirely populated by 'haves'?

[Rockie]

The solution, if one is even necessary, is modifying the contract to suit the majority as it applies to this new reality. It is not to deny a right to work to a segment of the pilot group because they had the misfortune of getting hired before a certain date.

The solution I propose offers the same - the only difference is it would be implemented over the course of a generation, starting with a minority and eventually becoming a majority. The solution you suggest would make the same change effective in an instantaneous decision. The same outcome, but over a different time frame.

If the majority feels the pay system requires modification due to the demise of mandatory retirement, those changes could only occur over several successive contracts. Doing it all at once is not feasible. It would also be unwise to change anything at all until some time has passed under the new rules to see if change is even required, because the negative impact from this will not be anywhere near what ACPA's fear mongering propaganda machine has been grinding out.

If change is deemed necessary there must be a thorough objective analysis of what those changes should be. The membership must be fully apprised of all aspects of the issue, and they must be consulted on the direction they wish to go based on that comprehesive understanding of the facts.

In other words, the complete opposite of what has occurred so far.