Seeker Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 I'll just bring this up to the top since it's getting a bit difficult to follow. Every post I make here is just my opinion, even if I quote someone else, it's still just my interpretation of what was said which is the same as my opinion. My "feeling" that this arbitration will be interest-based stems from real data, although it is apparently not what you would consider sufficient enough to draw a conclusion. It's much the same as when I decided a few weeks before the announcement that the new order would be split between Bombardier and Embrer. I did this by keeping my ear to the ground: Milton states in an interview that the order will "definitly" be split between two companies and in another report some Star Alliance spokesperson says that they haven't decided but that Boeing and Airbus are out for sure. So, two plus two. No trick to this as I'm sure many came to the same conclusion. I have told you all this to illustrate that sometimes a conclusion can be reached without having the Judge's words ringing in your ears, right? It doesn't always work, that's for sure, but can certainly give odds on what is likely. Now, about the arbitration, it will be either rights-based or interest-based. In my opinion the chance that this could end up being rights-based is almost zero because it would take away the opportunity for the arbitrator to look at the economics behind the situation and since CCAA is all about economics..... Well, there you go. An interest-based arbitration will favour the Jazz pilots and this is likely to be interest-based. Two plus two. No slam dunk but there definitly are odds to play (figuritivly speaking). My last point is that this isn't wishfull thinking as you suggested. Wishfull thinking on my part would have me going on about how nice it would be to solve this, on our own, before Jan 17th. Now that would be wishfull thinking. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 Of course it's your opinion, seeker, and that's a perfectly valid thing to offer on the forum. It's also perfectly valid for me or anyone else to ask how you justify that opinion. After all, you are speaking out on an issue that will affect the livelihood of thousands of people. Isn't it reasonable that we see how trustworthy your beliefs are? And what's more, no doubt you welcome the opportunity to show how sound your comments are considering the importance the topic will have to so many people. Isn't that just normal discourse when views are being exchanged? I offer an opinion, you ask me why I think that way, I tell you, and then you say good point or that you don't agree or that you need to think about it some more? I have no disagreement with your comments on AC's choice of aircraft. You appear to have made good inferences from what you heard. In the case of the arbitration however, you do not appear to have drawn a supportable conclusion from the information you've presented here. I certainly remain open-minded about that, though. If you have other information or logic to support your thinking, I'm all ears. Here's another example. You state that the arbitration "wil be either rights-based or interest-based." It's either/or, in your view. I don't know enough about either, frankly, but you are clearly stating that the method used will be exclusionary to the other. This seems extreme to my way of thinking. I would have expected an arbitrator to neither ignore a party's rights, nor ignore the other party's interests. But again, if you have information that states that the arbitrator will be choosing one method in sole exclusion of the other, please bring it forward and I'll stand corrected. Wishful thinking sometimes arises when people desire a certain outcome, and is characterized by the same people drawing hopeful inferences and conclusions that the available information doesn't support. If you haven't indulged in it, then power to you. Nevertheless, to my way of thinking you have indeed drawn conclusions that are not justified by the information you have given in support of them. Best, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 Of course it's your opinion, seeker, and that's a perfectly valid thing to offer on the forum. It's also perfectly valid for me or anyone else to ask how you justify that opinion. After all, you are speaking out on an issue that will affect the livelihood of thousands of people. Isn't it reasonable that we see how trustworthy your beliefs are? And what's more, no doubt you welcome the opportunity to show how sound your comments are considering the importance the topic will have to so many people. Isn't that just normal discourse when views are being exchanged? I offer an opinion, you ask me why I think that way, I tell you, and then you say good point or that you don't agree or that you need to think about it some more? I have no disagreement with your comments on AC's choice of aircraft. You appear to have made good inferences from what you heard. In the case of the arbitration however, you do not appear to have drawn a supportable conclusion from the information you've presented here. I certainly remain open-minded about that, though. If you have other information or logic to support your thinking, I'm all ears. Here's another example. You state that the arbitration "wil be either rights-based or interest-based." It's either/or, in your view. I don't know enough about either, frankly, but you are clearly stating that the method used will be exclusionary to the other. This seems extreme to my way of thinking. I would have expected an arbitrator to neither ignore a party's rights, nor ignore the other party's interests. But again, if you have information that states that the arbitrator will be choosing one method in sole exclusion of the other, please bring it forward and I'll stand corrected. Wishful thinking sometimes arises when people desire a certain outcome, and is characterized by the same people drawing hopeful inferences and conclusions that the available information doesn't support. If you haven't indulged in it, then power to you. Nevertheless, to my way of thinking you have indeed drawn conclusions that are not justified by the information you have given in support of them. Best, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozanne Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Just a couple of questions. When ACPA reahed the agreement with the company in CCAA, did it state the type of arbitration which was to take place? When Alpa reached thier agreement with the company was the type of arbitration specified? If the type of arbitration in either case was specified, and then not followed, would it cause the entire agreement from ccaa to be void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crow Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Haven't been following it so closely, but any opinions as to what kind of time frame an order like that would involve? Many months... several years... before any effect would be seen? I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Not wishfull thinking Neo, Intuitive thinking. Certainly cannot name sources but, ACPA, ALPA, and the Company were to meet in Dec. with Teplinski. Fact. The meeting was to decide on the paramiters of the arbitration. rights-based or interest based. Only ACPA wanted a rights-based arbitration for obvious reasons. Teplinski decided that since everyone else (including Milton) wanted an interest based arbitration, no need for the meeting. Seeker, your analisis is very accurate. Your intuitive opinion is in my opinion, bang on. But thats just my opinion... easyjazz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozanne Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 easyJ: You mention that every one else includung Milton wanted a intrest based arbitration. Do you know if the type of arbitration that is to take place was specified by the company in agreements with either acpa or alpa. Oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Oz, As far as I know, the type of arbitration was not specified. This seems supported by the fact that in January meetings will be held to determine which method will be used in the arbitration. Hope that helps, neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 No need for a metting? So you're saying that the announcement I received from ACPA on December 23, 2003 stating that hearings will commence on January 17th, 2004 to determine whether the arbitration will be rights based or interest based is in error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 No need for a meeting? So you're saying that the announcement I received from ACPA on December 23, 2003 stating that hearings will commence on January 17th, 2004 to determine whether the arbitration will be rights based or interest based is in error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted December 28, 2003 Author Share Posted December 28, 2003 Neo: Apparently Teplitsky cancelled the scheduled meeting for Dec 6th when it became clear that the remaining 3 parties were in agreement with the previously determined scope of the arbitration. This means that the groundwork for an interest-based arbitration was put into place by ACPA's acceptance to arbitrate the new jets way back in June. ACPA wishes now to make changes to the agreement they signed earlier and has indicated that this will be on the top of their agenda for the January meeting. While it may be technically correct to say that the January meeting will decide what type of arbitration in reality it appears that the decision has been made. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Neo is correct, The January 17th meeting is a preliminary only, to hear motions on the type of arbitration to take place. And ACPA will ofcourse, motion for a rights based arbitration, and will also question the arbitators jurisdiction in the matter. If not satisfied with the outcome, they will do what they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted December 28, 2003 Author Share Posted December 28, 2003 Hmmmm... A meeting is scheduled and motions will be heard, I agree. Not motions on the type of arbitration but ACPA's motions on why the previously agreed scope of the arbitration should be changed. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Yes, motions on the type of arbitration. Is your source accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 seeker, Once again you add the required depth over my partial understanding of the situation. You are well informed, and quite correct. The decision has already been made. Thank you once again for your input seeker. easyjazz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Neo is correct, The January 17th meeting is a preliminary only, to hear motions on the type of arbitration to take place. And ACPA will ofcourse, motion for a rights based arbitration, and will also question the arbitrators jurisdiction in the matter. If not satisfied with the outcome, they will do what they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted December 28, 2003 Author Share Posted December 28, 2003 Hmmmm... A meeting is scheduled and motions will be heard, I agree. Not motions on the type of arbitration but ACPA's motions on why the previously agreed scope of the arbitration should be changed. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Yes, motions on the type of arbitration. Is your source accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 EJ; Thank you, Thank you very much. Now, excuse me while I order a larger hat. Just to clarify - I didn't say the decision was made, I said the decision appears to have been made. Nothing black or white just different shades of gray. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 All I can do is to continue to point to the published information sent by ACPA to all its members. It's a private communication so I won't quote it here, but it goes to some lengths to explain that the January 17th, 2004 meeting is a preliminary one to determine whether the arbitration will be rights-based or interest-based, and includes a full explanation of both types. So it would appear that ACPA didn't get the message you've heard that the matter is already decided. Indeed, our union appears to be taking the scheduled discussion very seriously. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 I have no source, per se, just the same memos and updates available to everyone. The one difference, perhaps, is that I try to sift the possibilities and probabilities through the updates, reports and news releases and see what gets caught. Here's an example: Two cars, an Ford and a Chevy, have a race. The Ford wins and the Chevy loses (suspension of disbelief needed here). The Ford publicist reports: Ford wins, Chevy Loses. Meanwhile the Chevy publicist reports: Chevy finishes second, Ford finishes second last. So what I'm saying is that a lot of the people involved in this mess could have a great future writing race reports for Chevrolet should they want a change in career. They can't actually speak an untruth but there are many ways to deflect a casual observer. For someone who takes the time to carefully examine the public information however certain bits of info will out themselves from the chaff. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Correction, "appears to be made" I find it interesting that on the surface, Milton appears to support the ACPA camp with his signed letters...but then on the other hand through the back door appears to be supporting ALPA... Me thinks the tables have turned. Why else would the company support an interest based arbitration if they did not want Jazz to fly the 76-110 seat AC? Interesting turn of events. easyjazz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.