Mitch Cronin Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Well folks... we're surrounded by hostile u-boats and the skipper's losing the crew... A quote from another site that pretty much sums up the feelings of what appears to be a majority: "We bargained in good faith, and are now being asked for more to seal the deal. Get bent. It ain't gonna happen. We did our part by swallowing the bitter pill we were asked to swallow. We did our part. If nothing more can be done, then, SHUT 'ER DOWN BOYS!!!! It's better to have a bungalow on a solid foundation than a castle built on sand." Are similar attitudes being expressed elsewhere as well? Where do we go from here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eights wild Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I doubt that that is the sentiment of most 'worker bees', sounds like union verbal steadfastness to me. Most of us have the mortgage of a castle, or at least a lifestyle to support. so giving a little more is what will have to do. I think the mentality here is all wrong too..."ask not what your ------- can do for you, but what you can do for your------" You fill in the blanks, it applies to everything in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 It all depends if you have faith and trust in this management team.If most employees answer yes to both questions,then the sky's the limit.Why not have a poll on the Trinity web site.It seems like its the in thing these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Especially since both Trinity and GE have trust and faith in this management team and it looks to me that they're signing the cheques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Especially since both Trinity and GE have trust and faith in this management team and it looks to me that they're signing the cheques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 Where does that leave us when/if Trinity takes that walk they say is looming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 All this time effort and money will not go for not.Judge Farley will tell the unions to sit down and start talking.If they refuse to even talk well i'll see you on the U.I line.It will be interesting to see the results of the pension issue poll.I don't think anything will happen untill the results are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Depends on your POV, it could be argued that had HH not signed off the first scope clause AC would have had more flexability to adjust to the changing times, and the Pilots probably would have sorted out their differences years ago and wouldn't be engaged in their so called "Race to the bottom" I'm not sure but wasn't it HH who made the decision not to beat up on WJ during their start up? The only bad thing that RM did IMO was to fight the onex bid, because had Gerry been in charge the bleeding would have stopped long before the patient became critical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 If indeed Trinity is willing to grandfather in all current employees to the pension plan of their choice and keep paying for whatever benefits they have today, the unions will have two choices 1. negotiate the DC option for future hires 2. close the company If they choose option #2, I will grieve for you all personally, since it's no great option to be looking for work in the industry with 30,000 others... but I will rejoice that the union movement is flushed right out of the Canadian airline industry, especially since they could only choose option #2 without consulting their members. The only rational explanation for refusing to allow DC into AC for volunteers and all new hires would be because the CAW and CUPE in particular are afraid of the impact that caving in on the issue would have for autoworkers, municipal employees, etc. In other words, they might be willing to sacrifice AC employees on the altar of protecting their larger monopoly units Do I think it will happen? No, I think LongTimer is right; Farley will throw his weight behind the issue, as will - I bet - most AC employees which means the media and politicians will be leaning heavily as well. There is nothing more the media loves than to hector stupid or selfish unions. I remember when Benson threatened to shut down CP in 30 days without concessions. Well, he didn't get all he wanted, but he got pretty far with his threat and even Buzz Hargrove had to budge. And AC is a lot closer to extinction than CP was in 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Harris handed all the RJs to ACPA, which is one issue still be hashed out. As for Onex, do you see the state they are in right now? Who knows, AC would probably have ended up in the same place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 I guess I should have said...might have stopped... but you are probably right, it's doubtful anyone could have predicted or mitigated the events of the last few years Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Actually, if Onex had won then AA would have won and for an example of what happens to companies taken over by AA, just take a look at the TWA example. If Onex had won, AC would likely be a domestic only carrier with AA flying T/B and most international routes and AC reduced to a feeder carrier for AA. Don't believe me? Ask any TWA F/A or pilot what has happened to their careers after AA took them over or just take a look at what AA did to the TWA hub in St Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 One point though, re international routes, the only way AA could have take over the flying would have been to route the passengers over the USA. There is no way in hell that the CTA would have granted AA the right to operate direct from Canada to the overseas locations served by AirCanada. Re which would have been the best bet in the long run, guess we will never know....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 My age and seniority add up to 60+. As such I would be required to stay in the DB and that I believe equates to age discrimination. I want the DC option as well!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geminoid Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 "My age and seniority add up to 60+. As such I would be required to stay in the DB " I read it that you would have the option, at least in Trinity's initial proposal. Under Milton's "intervention", I understand that the option would also be there, hence, the survey that's underway. Geminoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 OK, I was wrong, after watching AA suck CP dry, I think I'm inclined to agree with you that it would have been a bad thing. Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.