View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 116[450] For example, Captain Duke stated that although a scheduling solution could be found if only10% of Vancouver pilots were “potentially restricted”, it would have resulted in some First Officersreceiving materially lower quality monthly schedules.[451] The Tribunal noted that “There is no evidence as to the actual number of restricted pilotsincluded in the 10% cohort”: Tribunal decision #2, at para.122. However, Captain Duke’sexperiment did not require consideration of the actual number of over-60 Captains and FirstOfficers in Vancouver at the time. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether a flight2011 FC 120 (CanLII)schedule could be produced if 10% of each group was potentially restricted.[452] The Tribunal discounted Captain Duke’s evidence on this point on the basis that he had notexplained how he had arrived at these conclusions: Tribunal decision #2, at para. 124. In actual fact,Captain Duke had explained that he had used Air Canada’s normal scheduling software, identifiedcertain pilots as restricted under the ICAO standards, and then tried to generate hypotheticalschedules in the same way that Air Canada currently generates real monthly schedules: transcript, atpp. 1409-1411.[453] The Tribunal also found that there was “no evidence as to what is a materially lower qualityschedule or why this is so”: Tribunal decision #2, at para. 125. However, Captain Duke hadexplained in his testimony that a “materially lower quality schedule” was one where senior pilotswere awarded the reserve (or “on-call”) duty that would typically be awarded to more junior pilots,as opposed to a fixed, scheduled block of flying: transcript, at pp.1397-98 and 1410-1411, and slides16-19 of Captain Duke’s PowerPoint presentation.