Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[yycflyguy]

So then we have a bet?

[vic777]

So then we have a bet?

Sure, I'll bet that Air Canada has more than one over age Sixty Captain flying the line in December 2012. And I'll also bet that ACPA will get hosed in the implementation of this NWO.

[yycflyguy]

How about if I win, you leave at age 60 and if you win, I'll leave at age 60?

[Rockie]

Why waste your talents flying the EMJ when there must be a position for you at CHRT or even the SCC to make bold statements such as obvious errors of any previous judgements that is against the flypast60 opinion.

I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but I can read and presumably so can you. The SC explicitly lays out the test for satisfying BFOR which the VK case not only did not satisfy, but made absolutely no attempt to satisfy.

Go ahead...find an argument to refute this.

The law has to be implemented, all appeals exhausted including BFOR, probable argument before the SCC, the company has to show a bid with openings, the returning pilots must undergo full courses, full line indoctrination, full medicals... under 13 months? Fahgetabouit.

No appeals. The law takes effect regardless of what legal arguments ACPA tries to throw in its path 365 days after full government approval, which is little more than a week away. Air Canada (not ACPA) will have to convince the CHRT of some kind of BFOR requirement before there is any limitation on retirement age of any kind after that date, and both you and they are smoking dope if you think age 60 will win the day.

Someday in the future, yes.

So you admit that at least. So why are you and ACPA putting all your efforts into a war that you admit you will ultimately lose instead of being a participant in how it's implemented?

You know, this is what I don't understand. In the face of certain change you continue to fight the bad fight for what...? Still waiting for an answer why ACPA, you and many others would deny reality to their own detriment.

At the risk of offending you and many others it is sheer stupidity, and we deserve everything that comes next for our pilot group.

[Rockie]

How about if I win, you leave at age 60 and if you win, I'll leave at age 60?

How about if you lose you leave at 65...or 70?

[vic777]

So why are you and ACPA putting all your efforts into a war that you admit you will ultimately lose instead of being a participant in how it's implemented?

You know, this is what I don't understand. In the face of certain change you continue to fight the bad fight for what...? Still waiting for an answer why ACPA, you and many others would deny reality to their own detriment.

It's not really to their own detriment, the ACPA Elite wants to prolong the inevitable for as long as possible so that they can be the most Senior for the NWO. It's always been an attempt to score big gains for the ACPA Elite at the expense of the rank and file.
Some people call this greed, others just say it is human nature.

[yycflyguy]

How about if I win, you leave at age 60 and if you win, I'll leave at age 60?

How about if you lose you leave at 65...or 70?

No way! You can't make me stay and work with those dysfunctional pilots with that dysfunctional union!

You have to admit that my bet conditions was good humour... or is that forgotten in all this?

[yycflyguy]

So why are you and ACPA putting all your efforts into a war that you admit you will ultimately lose instead of being a participant in how it's implemented?

You know, this is what I don't understand. In the face of certain change you continue to fight the bad fight for what...? Still waiting for an answer why ACPA, you and many others would deny reality to their own detriment.

It's not really to their own detriment, the ACPA Elite wants to prolong the inevitable for as long as possible so that they can be the most Senior for the NWO. It's always been an attempt to score big gains for the ACPA Elite at the expense of the rank and file.
Some people call this greed, others just say it is human nature.

Hello pot, the kettle called.

[Rockie]

You have to admit that my bet conditions was good humour... or is that forgotten in all this?

I love a good laugh as much as the next guy and I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent. Maybe in 20 years or so I'll think this was a laughing matter, but the damage to the pilot group that will inevitably result from ACPA's grossly negligent and incompetent mishandling of this issue will not be anything to laugh at, nor indeed will the Air Canada pilot's anachronistic attitude to a very relevant social issue.

I'm just not in the mood for laughing at this right now, and you won't be either when the time comes to pay the price.

How's that for a bet?

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
There is no way you are who you claim to be. You claim you are a junior emj captain? There is no way that you can have the time to post over 4000 times and still fly a 16- 18 day block. If you are on reserve you would have even less free time.... I think i smell a shister.

[yycflyguy]

You have to admit that my bet conditions was good humour... or is that forgotten in all this?

I love a good laugh as much as the next guy and I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent. Maybe in 20 years or so I'll think this was a laughing matter, but the damage to the pilot group that will inevitably result from ACPA's grossly negligent and incompetent mishandling of this issue will not be anything to laugh at, nor indeed will the Air Canada pilot's anachronistic attitude to a very relevant social issue.

I'm just not in the mood for laughing at this right now, and you won't be either when the time comes to pay the price.

How's that for a bet?

[yycflyguy]

Rockie,
There is no way you are who you claim to be. You claim you are a junior emj captain? There is no way that you can have the time to post over 4000 times and still fly a 16- 18 day block. If you are on reserve you would have even less free time.... I think i smell a shister.

Nah. Anybody can get vacation in November.

[Raymond Hall]

Rockie, There is no way you are who you claim to be. You claim you are a junior emj captain? There is no way that you can have the time to post over 4000 times and still fly a 16- 18 day block. If you are on reserve you would have even less free time.... I think i smell a shister.

Believe me, he is indeed who he says he is, juniority and all. By the way, have you heard of the iPhone? Great device! I am on my third one, and when my contract expires in another month, I will be on my fourth. I hear that the iPad is nice, as well, not to mention some of those Blackberries, and what, with free WiFi at YYZ, YVR, YUL, and a whole slew of other airports that pilots spend countless boring hours at, what the heck? Might as well keep posting....

[Rockie]

Rockie,
There is no way you are who you claim to be. You claim you are a junior emj captain? There is no way that you can have the time to post over 4000 times and still fly a 16- 18 day block. If you are on reserve you would have even less free time.... I think i smell a shister.

I think you mean "shyster".

"A person who uses unscrupulous or unethical methods."

Perhaps you're right, maybe I'm not even an Air Canada pilot. Maybe I'm just an unemployed flight instructor with lots of time on her hands because she got laid off and can't get hired at Air Canada, so I spend my time aggravating its pilots.


yycflyguy

A little while ago one of ACPA's age60 committee members alluded to the "enormous potential of liability" the Air Canada pilots are exposed to as a result of their handling of this issue. Should that come to pass will you still be laughing and making "we're all doomed" jokes? Because you can be sure I won't be.

[TheStig]

Trying to stay open minded here, and looking for a bit of clarity. This process has been taken down so many different avenues that things are getting pretty muddy.

If a the Bill to end mandatory retirement is passed in the House of Commons (without any exemptions, unlike the Bill that died earlier this year). Moving forward AC and organizations/Corporations re-write/negotiate their contracts with their employee groups to accommodate the new legislation.

This seems like a very different process than the legal challenges that have been brought forward over the past few years by the FP60 group. My question for Raymond Hall is, if Mandatory Retirement is abolished by this Bill, how can organizations, in this case Air Canada and ACPA, face any liability?

[yycflyguy]

Rockie,
There is no way you are who you claim to be. You claim you are a junior emj captain? There is no way that you can have the time to post over 4000 times and still fly a 16- 18 day block. If you are on reserve you would have even less free time.... I think i smell a shister.

yycflyguy

A little while ago one of ACPA's age60 committee members alluded to the "enormous potential of liability" the Air Canada pilots are exposed to as a result of their handling of this issue. Should that come to pass will you still be laughing and making "we're all doomed" jokes? Because you can be sure I won't be.

Rockie,

So you have me confused. You support the flypast60 group and continue to support them despite the fact you think a liability issue will have you shelling out money to allow those victims to return? So they scare you but you support them?

As an Embraer skipper flying with new hires, how do you justify to the most junior of our members that this cause is just and that those recently hired could face years of stagnation, at the very least, and potential furlough after being on the property for a brief period to make way for those returning victims?

Your disdain for all things ACPA have been made very clear. As you have not been on the property for long, what generated so much angst towards your labour union? If it is only the flypast60 issue, why have you not embraced the new MEC and the new direction the union is moving? Why haven't you asked to be on the flypast60 committee so your views could be heard directly?

If you are so scared of the returning victims, the enormous potential of liability, and that the obviously inferior union leadership does not represent you, why are you still an AC pilot? There are all kinds of opportunities overseas, especially for Embraer Captains. Perhaps, it's because you know that your fears may be unfounded.

[vic777]

Rockie,

So you have me confused. You support the flypast60 group and continue to support them despite the fact you think a liability issue will have you shelling out money to allow those victims to return? So they scare you but you support them?

Rockie is keeping his personal wishes out of it. Rockie has continually pointed out what is certain to happen and how we should deal with reality. So now you are no longer confused.

Why haven't you asked to be on the flypast60 committee so your views could be heard directly?

I doubt that the FlyPast60 committee hasn't read Rockies comments here.

it's because you know that your fears may be unfounded.

Maybe your mind works in such a convoluted fashion, maybe that prevents you from thinking clearly.

[yycflyguy]

Wow, Rockie. I didn't know that you had delegates speaking on your behalf. You must be more important than I originally thought!

Feel free to answer my questions, Rockie. They are not a personal attack but I really want to know how you justify your flypast60 support to both the junior pilots (for around $37k) you fly with daily and the victims (full career and full pension benefit) who want to return and cost "enormous potential of liability" to the existing membership.

It appears, to me, that you are in a conflicted position.

[Rockie]

So you have me confused. You support the flypast60 group and continue to support them despite the fact you think a liability issue will have you shelling out money to allow those victims to return? So they scare you but you support them?

Nothing for you to be confused about. This issue was only ever going to end one way and it's ACPA and the Air Canada pilots who have brought this liability on themselves, not the flypast60 group. When they win (and they will win) you will not see me dancing in the aisles even though I happen to agree with their position. I will be extremely unhappy because ACPA and my colleagues will have shot themselves in both feet against all common sense.

This has been going on for close to six years now and we doggedly refuse to see the direction this is irrevocably going. Sure, there are the odd detours as ACPA temporarily wins a small skirmish, but this is only going to end one way that even an idiot should be able to see after this length of time.

As an Embraer skipper flying with new hires, how do you justify to the most junior of our members that this cause is just and that those recently hired could face years of stagnation, at the very least, and potential furlough after being on the property for a brief period to make way for those returning victims?

I justify it two ways. The first is that they will one day be thankful their right to work until they choose to stop has been won. While they likely don't see that as good now they will eventually. The second way is by telling them the law is changing whatever we may wish and by fighting it we are only harming ourselves in a way that will soon become apparent. Most don't agree with me because like most they are so pissed off at the flypast60 group they are letting their anger dictate their actions instead of their brains.

Your disdain for all things ACPA have been made very clear. As you have not been on the property for long, what generated so much angst towards your labour union? If it is only the flypast60 issue, why have you not embraced the new MEC and the new direction the union is moving?

The problems with ACPA extend much farther than just this issue and I won't go into them here. Suffice to say it is a broken model that does not serve the pilots well, and having a new MEC does not fix the systemic problems or justify blind faith in them in any way. It is foolish to think so.

Why haven't you asked to be on the flypast60 committee so your views could be heard directly?

Someone with my views being welcomed on the age60 committee? You really are a funny guy aren't you.

If you are so scared of the returning victims, the enormous potential of liability, and that the obviously inferior union leadership does not represent you, why are you still an AC pilot? There are all kinds of opportunities overseas, especially for Embraer Captains. Perhaps, it's because you know that your fears may be unfounded.

People generally fear the unknown, and I have been absolutely certain of how this will end since it began which is why I am vocal about it. I'm not fearful, I'm pissed off that the group I belong to that prides itself on professionalism and thinks itself above any of the other employee groups can be so stubbornly dense.

Why don't I go overseas? Simple...I don't want to.

[Raymond Hall]

... if Mandatory Retirement is abolished by this Bill, how can organizations, in this case Air Canada and ACPA, face any liability?

The potential liability comes from the complaints that are outstanding as of the date that the law comes into force and Air Canada is forced by legislation instead of by the Tribunal and the Court to stop terminating the employment of employees on the basis of age. If those terminations occurred prior to the legislative change coming into force (November, 2012) and if the Tribunal and/or the Courts find that the terminations violated the law prior to its formal repeal, the airline (and the union) will be liable for damages for those complaints (now almost 200 in number).

On another note, just got off a flight to YOW, in preparation for tomorrow's appearance before the Federal Court of Appeal. I spoke with two of my friends on the flight who are Members of Parliament in government heading directly to Parliament to vote on the Budget Bill (that happens to include the mandatory retirement repeal provision). They told me that after the vote today, they expect the Bill to receive very rapid passage through the Senate, followed by immediate Royal Assent. Like, days, not weeks. The word is that this the government wants this legislation to come into law A.S.A.P.

[yycflyguy]

... if Mandatory Retirement is abolished by this Bill, how can organizations, in this case Air Canada and ACPA, face any liability?

The potential liability comes from the complaints that are outstanding as of the date that the law comes into force and Air Canada is forced by legislation instead of by the Tribunal and the Court to stop terminating the employment of employees on the basis of age. If those terminations occurred prior to the legislative change coming into force (November, 2012) and if the Tribunal and/or the Courts find that the terminations violated the law prior to its formal repeal, the airline (and the union) will be liable for damages for those complaints (now almost 200 in number).

I think you just admitted there is no liability up to the date the law comes into force. So why all the scare tactics of enormous potential liability? Up to the date it becomes law all of this is just legal manoeuvring.

[Raymond Hall]

I think you just admitted there is no liability up to the date the law comes into force.

I can now see why we are having so much difficulty on the most basic aspects of this issue.

[29chev]

Trying to understand Ray,

How can you....

If those terminations occurred prior to the legislative change coming into force (November, 2012) and if the Tribunal and/or the Courts find that the terminations violated the law prior to its formal repeal

....violate a law prior to it becoming law? If it has not been changed yet how can you be breaking it and if your not breaking it until after it has become law wouldn't it make sense that you would only be liable for those costs if you continue to terminate staff after the date it becomes law?

29chev

[yycflyguy]

I think you just admitted there is no liability up to the date the law comes into force.

I can now see why we are having so much difficulty on the most basic aspects of this issue.

Although I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, your use of future tense verbs based on a past action have created confusion.

The potential liability comes from the complaints that are outstanding as of the date that the law comes into force and Air Canada is forced by legislation instead of by the Tribunal and the Court to stop terminating the employment of employees on the basis of age. If those terminations occurred prior to the legislative change coming into force (November, 2012)

[Cat Driver]

complaints that are outstanding as of the date that the law comes into force

Maybe those are the three words that define this issue?