equipment bid

[Brick Head]

Do you follow that?

I think?


If a ruling comes out that you like it applies to everyone. If a ruling comes out that you don't like it applies to just the individuals involved.

Did you really just say that?

If the Vilven/Kelly award stands up on appeal. Your only option at that point is to claim that the facts of that case are not relevant to the other 44 cases. .

Which is what you are basically doing now

That is going to be a hard sell given the ICAO and US changes were mentioned in the ruling and the guidance given, for normal retirement, allows for change over time in comparison to what happens in the world around us.

New hearings are not a given.

[Al707]

Rebel... well because ACPA is flogging a different dead horse in the merger/seniority debate! So much so that the purple guys are actually turning PURPLE. Or are we GREEN?

WOW... is that a first Tony? Amazing if you give considered thought/ reflection on others views it happens sometimes

[55+]

Not meaning to fan further flames on this obviously sensitive subject but as a point of interest.Assuming I am an Air Canada pilot now and will turn 60 yrs old next week - what are my options:

[Lost in Saigon]

Assuming I am an Air Canada pilot now and will turn 60 yrs old next week - what are my options:

You must retire. Nothing has changed yet.

We must wait for the results of the Vilven/Kelly appeal. The CHRT said they will not hear any more age related cases until the appeal is final. This is because the results of the Vilven/Kelly appeal may make it unnecessary to hear the other 44 cases.

If the CHRT says the Vilven/Kelly decision will stand as is, then the other 44 cases will be heard because their circumstances are totally different because they will have retired long after Vilven/Kelly did, when the average normal retirement age was much higher. (probably age 65)

If the CHRT appeal says the original decision was wrong because it should not have looked outside Canada, then Vilven and Kelly will probably win because every other airline in Canada has age 65 for "Normal Retirement". If this is the case then there will probably be no reason to hear the other 44 cases.

[Rockie]

Brickhead

There will be more hearings because once Vivlen and Kelly is finally done someone will go to the Human Rights Commission and argue that the goal posts have changed and now the normal retirement age is 65. Whereas forcing retirement at 60 for Vilven and Kelly was not discrimination, now it is. They will allow another hearing based on the changing circumstances because they have to.

[Brick Head]

Brickhead

There will be more hearings because once Vivlen and Kelly is finally done someone will go to the Human Rights Commission and argue that the goal posts have changed and now the normal retirement age is 65. Whereas forcing retirement at 60 for Vilven and Kelly was not discrimination, now it is. They will allow another hearing based on the changing circumstances because they have to.

Rockie and Lost,

It is not like I don't understand your point. Yes the goal posts have changed. They are continually changing. Like I said earlier this is a very well crafted ruling.

Do you really think the CHRT didn't know there was a line up behind Vilven/Kelly?

Do you think the CHRT doesn't realize that it is in the interest of those wanting to stay beyond 60 that forward looking guidance is provided?

Do you think the CHRT doesn't realize that it is in the best interest of AC and ACPA and collective bargaining to give direction?

Do you think the CHRT doesn't realize that changing guidance causes more harm than good? Law suits.

They are in the lets get this settled business. They are not in lets stir this up and see how much havoc we can create business.

Of course they are always careful to protect their jurisdiction on an issue. They will always retain the right to "change their mind" if they see fit.

The CHRT gave us a formal to follow the change going on around us. When that formula equals 61. normal is 61. When the formula equals 65 then normal is 65. The guidance given, follows those moving goal posts.

The CHRT is a busy place. They are the judge and jury on what they decide to hear and what they dismiss. You will have to get passed a hearing to decide if the complaints are worthy of hearing. They will not do repeats. If your complaint has been answered it will be dismissed.

Will they really hear more complaints?

Your position is that the normal age of retirement, goal post have changed since the Vilven/Kelly award. I agree, absolutely, without question.

But what has changed since the Vilven/Kelly award that makes the guidance irrelevant to the other 44 cases? Just because the normal age of retirement has gone up does not imply irrelevance. The guidance deals with the changes in retirement age that you speak of.

So will a CHRT hear more complaints? Highly speculative.

We may very well be staring right now at the rules for what is the normal age of retirement for Air Canada pilots. IMO that is likely.

Beyond following the guidance there is no reason/requirement at the moment for ACPA to change the mandatory retirement age. In fact it would be absolutely ridiculous to do so until this issue is definitively decided. Trying to out guess the courts is a bad idea. Trying to unwind a guess that was wrong could create more grief than we have now.

The only thing you can expect ACPA to logically do is.

1)Follow the guidance/ changing guidance as this goes through the courts.

2) Make a final determination on how to implement the guidance only after we have a definitive answer.

Demands for anything else is pure rhetoric.

[Brick Head]

If the CHRT appeal says the original decision was wrong because it should not have looked outside Canada, then Vilven and Kelly will probably win because every other airline in Canada has age 65 for "Normal Retirement".

Lost,

The Vilven/Kelly award also stated there was no adequate comparator within Canada.

The appeals court will not dictate "the comparator group". They will just send it back to the CHRT saying you can't use the one used.

So then what? What happens to the exception within the CHRA that allows for normal retirement as long as it is the normal age of retirement? Without a comparator how do you implement that?

We would need a change to the CHRA itself.

I mean I will never say never when it comes to the courts, but your suggestion goes far beyond a simple outcome.

[Rockie]

Brickhead

I don't really understand what we're arguing about here, because it sounds to me like we have a pretty close understanding of the issue. Where I think we differ is on what ACPA and the membership should be doing about it. I think ACPA and the membership are fighting a battle that is already lost in it's most basic form, and instead should be formulating a plan for the future reality. They (we) are definitely not doing that now. You seem to me to be a thinking individual, so don't you agree that we should be laying the ground rules for future changes that will happen instead of wasting resources on lost causes? Also, don't you think ACPA is doing the membership a disservice by suggesting that a vote by the membership can stop the retirement age from increasing, and not preparing for any other eventuality?

[Brick Head]

I don't really understand what we're arguing about here, because it sounds to me like we have a pretty close understanding of the issue.

Ya know I think you are right. I think you and I are very close in our understanding. I think I have mixed you and Lost up a couple of times. My apologies.


Where I think we differ is on what ACPA and the membership should be doing about it. I think ACPA and the membership are fighting a battle that is already lost in it's most basic form, and instead should be formulating a plan for the future reality. They (we) are definitely not doing that now. You seem to me to be a thinking individual, so don't you agree that we should be laying the ground rules for future changes that will happen instead of wasting resources on lost causes?

Most definitely. I don't think we even disagree there either. The problem is, until the court makes a final determination, as to what the ground rules are, what does ACPA or AC work within? Different outcomes from the courts will have different responses. Some, like no age limit at all, substantially different. Remember AC is a party to the collective agreement. They have to agree to the change. They have already stated, in court, if the end result is no retirement age at all they will be seeking substantial changes to the collective agreement.

Until there is a final determination through the legal process the issue is in a head lock. Frustration directed at ACPA, over the pace of the legal process is a little displaced.



Also, don't you think ACPA is doing the membership a disservice by suggesting that a vote by the membership can stop the retirement age from increasing, and not preparing for any other eventuality?

ACPA never suggested a vote by the membership can stop what the CHRT mandates. What they were looking for was a mandate from the membership. Protect the status quo? Yes or No? The membership answered Yes and ACPA acted accordingly. That's it. Since then, anyone paying attention understands ACPA lost in its attempt to protect mandatory retirement at age 60.

[yycflyguy]

Did everyone complete the WAWCON survey?

[Rockie]

Brickhead

I'm not frustrated at the slow pace of the legal process. I am surprised at the complete lack of planning or consideration for what comes next. Asking a bunch of pilots if they prefer to retire at 60 or 65 is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion and didn't need to be asked. But since it was asked we as a pilot group are now fixated on defending the status quo which will soon go the way of the dinosaur regardless of our actions.

We need to plan for what comes next.

Instead of standing around declaring "NEVER", we need to be a lot more realistic about this issue and its eventual outcome. Talking about it such as we are doing here is a great help in that regard I think.

[Jaques Strappe]

Brickhead

I'm not frustrated at the slow pace of the legal process. I am surprised at the complete lack of planning or consideration for what comes next. Asking a bunch of pilots if they prefer to retire at 60 or 65 is a bit of a no brainer in my opinion and didn't need to be asked. But since it was asked we as a pilot group are now fixated on defending the status quo which will soon go the way of the dinosaur regardless of our actions.

We need to plan for what comes next.

Instead of standing around declaring "NEVER", we need to be a lot more realistic about this issue and its eventual outcome. Talking about it such as we are doing here is a great help in that regard I think.

Although you didn't come right out and say it, when I read your response, it was almost as if you are ready to just pack up and go without standing up for what you think may, or may not be right. I am happy that ACPA requested my opinion on this subject and I am very much against a minute minority of pilots who knew the gig before they signed on, trying to change the rules to suit their own selfish desires. Did any of these gentlemen bring this matter up when they were 30 years old and enjoying advancement? Of course not. Kelly is a millionaire, so how much does one need? He knows he will never see the flight deck again but a nice payout will be welcomed.

To just say that the outcome is inevitable is giving up before you start, an unfortunate trait that frankly, in my opinion, is a big contributing factor as to why the industry is the way it is today. Pick your battles, of course. Know when to admit defeat, of course. Know when to move on, of course. Giving up without a fight? I don't understand that.

Planning for what comes next is a great idea and of course, contingency planning is essential but remember, Kelly and Company were not subjected to a "pay group" and enjoyed fantastic advancement and pay increases as a result of the very thing THEY THEMSELVES negotiated into the collective agreement in the first place. The fact that they now want to "un negotiate" as non active ACPA members, the very thing they asked for, to suit their needs without due regard or respect for the next generation of pilots, all the while wrapping themselves in a "Human Rights" blanket is disgraceful. Perhaps they should retire to Western Sudan and spend some time thinking about that one.

If you are ready to just throw in the towel because the outcome in inevitable, then I guess we should all be ready and willing to give up our defined pensions as well? Why not throw in another 30% pay cut for good measure?

That was sarcasm obviously and I don't mean to be disrespectful. My apologies, however while I agree, we need to plan for whatever outcome may happen, I do take objection to being "fixated on defending the status quo which will soon go the way of the dinosaur regardless of our actions." That is an all too prevalent defeatist attitude among our group.

[Rockie]

To Vilven and Kelly and everyone else who wants the right to work beyond 60, those who would prevent it are just as selfish as you profess them to be. As long as those kinds of emotions are driving our actions events will overtake us. Over 60 is right around the corner, and planning for it is not giving up any fight. It is fighting smarter. If you don't get smart about the fight you will lose your right to retire at 60 because you would have been so focused on stopping it you didn't plan for the day it is forced on you.

This is not about Vilven and Kelly, they are merely the catalyst for something that is going to happen anyway.

[Brick Head]

To Vilven and Kelly and everyone else who wants the right to work beyond 60, those who would prevent it are just as selfish as you profess them to be.

First off how can the desire for equality be considered selfish? Secondly if equality is a selfish act, how can it be placed on the same plain as someone wanting the rules changed specifically for their own wants, at the expense of others?

It is easy enough to just state it. Care to explain?

As long as those kinds of emotions are driving our actions events will overtake us.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling, we have move on this right now" is a response based on emotion rather than logic.


Over 60 is right around the corner, and planning for it is not giving up any fight. It is fighting smarter.

Agreed. Being done as we speak. You may not like the course we have charted but IMO it is a very logical one.

If you don't get smart about the fight you will lose your right to retire at 60 because you would have been so focused on stopping it you didn't plan for the day it is forced on you.

Bullshit. Absolute total fear mongering. The courts render a decision. We abide by it. No court is going to tell us "how" we must incorporate the ruling unless forced to because of non compliance.

How is ACPA or AC in non compliance of court orders right now?

Just because "you think", ACPA's collective agreement, "might be", at "some point" in the future, be in non compliance with a court ruling we are forgoing our collective bargaining rights by living within the present rules????????

In that case I had better stop walking my dog in the park. At some undetermined point in the future, a by law might get passed that disallows such behavior.

What if they change the speed limit on the hwy next year? Maybe I should start doing 50 now just in case.

My neighbors fence is 6 feet high. There is talk of limiting fence's to 5 feet in the city. I think I'll demand to have him take it down. Threaten to sue him if he doesn't.

[Rockie]

First off how can the desire for equality be considered selfish? Secondly if equality is a selfish act, how can it be placed on the same plain as someone wanting the rules changed specifically for their own wants, at the expense of others?

It is easy enough to just state it. Care to explain?

I'd be happy to. You will enjoy the same right to work to 65 as anyone else, and at the same time no one wants to deny you the ability to retire at 60 if you wish. However you want to deny people the right to work to 65 because when you go at 60 you don't want anyone above you on the seniority list filling a seat that you see as your entitlement (which it's not). Where is the equality in your position?

Your position on this issue is driven entirely by what is best for you and you know it. That is being just as selfish as the over 60 crowd, and the fact that the majority of selfish people want to go at 60 doesn't make it less selfish. But like I said, those emotions aren't helpful because it distracts from what needs to be done.

This isn't a case of the "sky is falling", over 60 is staring us in the face and only the willfully blind can't see it. What are we doing about it besides trying to stop it?

[Brick Head]

First off how can the desire for equality be considered selfish? Secondly if equality is a selfish act, how can it be placed on the same plain as someone wanting the rules changed specifically for their own wants, at the expense of others?

Rockie

Absolutely agree. I have stated many many times I have no problem with individuals working beyond 60. I believe that is also the position of members on the age 60 committee. With one condition. No one junior gets harmed by the change.

Your explanation was absolutely correct, however you conveniently avoided "at the expense of others". The wage the individual makes that stay past 60 has to come from somewhere. AC won't be increasing payroll. It has to come from the wallets of their peers through stagnation

I'll buy for the sake of argument that both sides are reacting based on what is best for self.

But you want to claim that a defensive act, protecting what belongs to you, is on the same selfish plain as willfully trying to take what contractually belongs to their peers? Come on, I know their is a heart in there. You don't have a problem trapping someone in the position group longer as a result? Really?

So we have an individual in the position group. 30ish. Married. Kids. Took a big pay cut for the opportunity. Looking forward to making what he/she used to. Their desire to prevent individuals from delaying their contractually promised pay raise is selfish?

There are two issues.

1)Staying. Wanting to stay beyond 60 is not a selfish act.

2)What to do with an individual who stays. Wanting to take what belongs to your peers is a selfish act.

Issue one is not the problem. If that is all that was at stake this would be done already.

This isn't a case of the "sky is falling", over 60 is staring us in the face and only the willfully blind can't see it. What are we doing about it besides trying to stop it?

You still don't get what is happening. We are not trying to stop "it". ACPA has not appealed the Vilven/Kelly award. We know it is coming. The strategy is not to stop it. The strategy is to have control over implementation when it does happen.

When you understand that position you understand why ACPA and AC have acted as they have. Talking about implementing the change into the contract before we have a final out come is ridiculous. Moreover ACPA's desire to retain control over implementation would not be well served by revealing it now while the issue is before the courts.

Think about it.

[. .]

Rockie:

You're so quick to call anyone that disagrees selfish, or talk about their sense of entitlement. Surely the irony in your stance can't be entirely lost on you? You're arguing for the group that wants more, something that they currently don't have. What they want will surely come at the expense of those in your group that have the least. That in your eyes isn't selfish?

You talk about age 65 as if it's a 100% done deal, and that everyone might as well suck it up and get used to the new reality. In your eyes you don't see that is entitlement?

[Rockie]

Endless

I point out the equal selfishness in both group's positions, which by the way is perfectly normal. It is only natural to protect your own interests. Over 60 is a done deal, it just isn't in law yet but it surely will be. It has nothing to do with entitlement, it will be law that we will have to comply with.

Brickhead

I ask again what are we are doing to control how this is implemented? All I see is an attempt to stop it. It would be great if everyone gets exactly what they want out of this with no compromise necessary in either case. But we know that won't happen. Compromise will be necessary on both sides because we will have no choice but to make it work. And neither side can walk away with all the marbles. We will have to find a way suitable, or equally unsuitable for both sides.

[Jaques Strappe]

Rockie

I would like to commend you for keeping your posts civil when not everyone may be agreeing with your point. It is a refreshing change to the debate.

While I still stand by my position, I do understand yours and agree with some of your points. Planning for the eventuality is a must, otherwise we run the risk of falling flat on our faces. I think that is the main point of your arguement. I just do not want to see any pilot sit in that disgusting pay group one minute longer than need be. I for one, am willing to walk in order to get rid of it altogether.

One thing I overheard in flightplanning last year from a 767 Captain who makes $200K per year disgusted me and unfortunately, displayed how some of our senior pilots think. He was crazed that he would have to share his cargo disbursement with a new hire. Which of the two do you really think could have used that $2500 more? Who really suffered more from the cargo wetlease? Did he not think there were any new hires within ear shot?

This is a similar issue to that of "moonlighting" for other companies on our off time. Sure it may be our human right to do so but what about moral value? How can we honestly protest to the company that flying over 85 hours a month is too tiring, yet flying for someone else on our days off is fine? Not to mention the young pilot looking for his/her first break and being told, "no we don't need anyone, we have Air canada guys covering it."

As a member of a professional pilot group within a professional community, we should be collectively trying to enhance the industry as a whole rather than seeking the best for our individual selves at the expense of others. No, I am not a communist but I have been around long enough to see that when a group splinters to just fight the "battle of one" everyone loses, including the individual who thinks he just won something.

That is just my opinion and only that. But I am sure you have similar morals and share the same desire to see this dispute settled in a manner that is benefincial to everyone.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

All I see is an attempt to stop it.

Rockie ACPA hasn't appealed the Vilven/Kelly ruling. ACPA has not acted in anyway to "stop it". Not appealing equals acceptance.

I ask again what are we are doing to control how this is implemented?

By doing their best to ensure the courts do nothing to reduce AC and ACPA's rights when it comes to collective bargaining. Make sure the issue of staying past 60 and the rights you have after 60 are two separate issues. One human rights. The other solely a collective bargaining issue.

[Al707]

.!

[backon3]

Retiring at 60 is a benefit...Negotiated, agreed upon.... period. I don't care that everyone else is forced to work later in life.