Mitch Cronin Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 "Reason before passion" was the motto of one of my favorite political figures, and I think it's a brilliant bit of simple strategy that can keep trouble at bay. With that in mind, I've just been perusing the Keller list again... and the Arbitration... ...and reviewing a summary in my mind of comments posted by those on both sides of the issue... I've been impressed with the ability many of you have shown to approach this rather pertinent and ultimately extremely personally important issue with reason. No matter your personal perspective, you have to admit, when looking at the lists, it's a bloody hard thing to do to find a way to merge the lists that will ultimately fulfill the requirements of these three "must" statements: -The arbitration must not create winners or losers. -Each side must share in the fruits of progress. -Any decision must be effective and stand the test of time. After Mitchnick we saw much discussion here that included all of the same piss and vinegar that we're seeing now, as well as some of a similar brand of calm and considered commentary from both "sides"... At the time, in my view, there was a very reasonable call to review that award, from the blue side... while some on the red side were saying things like "get over it", "live with it", etc... While I wonder now if it might be some of those same voices making the most noise, I can't help noting that although much of the "final list" from Keller seems to me to have done a great job of keeping things as fair as is possible, there does appear to be one area where at least two of those above three "musts" have apparently not been met. Winners and losers: In the upper half (or so) of the bottom 3rd of the Keller list, there are blue pilots who have an improved position both in terms of DOH and their percentile position on the list - these would seem to me to be "winners". ("blue" pilots hired in 99, blended with "red" pilots hired in 97) As these "winners" are surrounded by red pilots, it would follow that those "red" pilots could reasonably consider themselves "losers". Nowhere else, that I can see, on that list has anyone else moved up in both measures. In fact, there is a huge pile of "blue" pilots in the lower section of the top half of the list (or so) that have slotted in above their previous relative (percentage) seniority, but are blended with "red" pilots much junior in terms of YOS... (blues hired from around 79 to 86 are blended with reds hired from about 85 to 89 or so... and a huge lot of blues hired around 88 are blended with reds hired around 96) The test of time: Having "lost" positions, from their perspective, and in reality, those "red" pilots in that portion of the Keller list who have been blended with "blue" pilots both junior in terms of relative percentage AND DOH, will never see that made up, in the test of time. They have, in my view, a legitimate beef. In the interest of putting "reason before passion", and in the interest of fairness to all... It would seem to me to be worth an effort by pilots from BOTH sides to fix that particular area on the list. With sincere apologies to those "blue" pilots who would hate that to happen... in fairness, I can't see how any of you could reasonable expect that inequity to exist. And a combined effort to fix that portion of the list may go a long way toward improving the current animosity that appears to have you all in a sort of stale mate....? Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I'm impressed, Mitch. You must be the only guy in the company who would take the time to study a seniority list that he isn't on... Keller had stated reasons for the variable ratios he used in constructing his list and even if you and I don't agree with his criteria within a certain band of seniority, attempting to change one section of a seniority list is next to impossible. There was a group of us within Canadian who tried for years to find a way to redress the EPA pilot's position vis a vis Nordair etc. on the Canadian list by reverting to a DOH list. Each attempt ran into a brick wall because any change to a legally binding seniority list will run into litigation from pilots adversely affected and it only takes one guy. The problem is that that one guy will be right in a court of law and he'll win the lawsuit. So even if both merger committees agreed to adjust a specific part of the Keller list (something I wouldn't bet on...), the adjustment would be shot down in court by anyone challenging it. The only way that the Keller list can be adjusted now, is if the Supreme Court of Canada chose to hear the case in order to set a binding legal precedent for future mergers between two publicly traded companies. I doubt that they will wish to hear the case, if petitioned to do so, but it's not impossible; after all, the Netherlands has written in law that all merger cases will combine work place seniority by strict date of hire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest long keel Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Mitch, Very well summoned up. lk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Hi Mitch Being retired I should just stay out of this and collect my pension. I have just a couple of thoughts and then I'll do my best to butt out. When Mitchnik came out there was a part of the award that bothered me. I really felt that the freeze that kept the OCP pilots from bidding the A340 was unfair. I and others said so publicly and we took heat for that from some other our fellow OAC types. Keller's award came out with list that he felt reflected the mandate that he was given. He went further though. His view was that the arbitrated award of MItchnik was unfair and due to the fact that the OCP group had lived with that ruling for about a year and a half he imposed a permanent penalty on the OAC group by discounting their seniority even further. Even if he was right why should the OAC group be punished because of an award issued by an appointed arbitrator? Personally I think that most people would see that as just a little unreasonable. There were those of us from the OAC group who would agree that the A340 freeze in the mitchnik award was unreasonable, but I have never seen anywhere where one OCP member would agree that the Mitchnik factor in the Keller award is unreasonable. In my view right from the start it should have been that each group would put their own lists together and then they would be combined as a percentile merge. Whatever position you were on either the OCP or the OAC list, would be the percentage that you would be on the combined list. If that had been the award from either Mitchnik or Keller this would be all over because it just makes sense although there will be many who wouldn't agree. Due to the fact that I retired when I did on the A340 in YVR the award never did have an impact on me. I would point out though that on the day I retired there was one more OCP type senior to me than there were OAC types, even though we had twice the number of pilots. Greg Robinson (Retiring back to my Bunker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Hiya Greg... re: "Being retired I should just stay out of this and collect my pension." Well you sure have more right to comment than I do, if there is such a thing... and I'm not sure anyone doesn't have that right? It's an issue that's affecting the entire company, and if we're to believe some reports, it's affecting both our company's future as well as Boeing's. I personally feel the straight percentile would have been rather punitive to a large portion of the pilots, but I know that view is not shared by all... as I said, overall I'm impressed with what appears to be on average, a reasonable result to a very tricky task. I'd like to have seen the results before correction for "the Mitchnick effect", but it does sound unfair to be penalizing anyone for the rest of their career based on something that existed for a year and a half. Starman, Studying that list is a lot less painful to me than studying the list I'm on - or the list I believe I should be on... I've tried reading through the Adams award that finalized our seniority, and I've thought my heart was going to pound it's way through my chest... Passion does get the better of me, but I can't see much "reason" in how some of that went either. Anyway, I'm obviously no legal wizard, but I'd be surprised to learn that the courts wouldn't do what needed to be done if the Company, the CIRB, AND both sides of the seniority debate all agreed on a single area of correction. Red tape be damned, right is right. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Personally I think that most people would see that as just a little unreasonable. Unless of course you were a benefactor of said Mitchnick penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Unless of course you were a benefactor of said Mitchnick penalty. I was a benefactor of the A340 freeze and I still thought that it was unfair and said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 GDR, I appreciate your input but there are a couple of areas where what seems at first to be obvious is not. Firstly, Canadian had a larger wide body base in YVR than AC did prior to the merge, so it isn't surprising that when you retired there would be a number of OCP types ahead of you on the 340 because these guys were flying left seats in 747's and DC10's in YVR before the merge. As for the "Mitchnick Effect" on Keller's ratio, are you aware that there are OCP pilots still prevented on the last bid from slotting into 340 F/O positions in YVR because of the RIR's acquired under the Mitchnick list? The 2 years that Mitchnick's list governed seniority is still being felt to the detrement of OCP seniority on Keller's list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 "and a huge lot of blues hired around 88 are blended with reds hired around 96) " So Mitch, this is where I fit in as a blue. the problem is, that as soon as you try to adjust the list to compensate the red's hired in "97 behind a blue from '99 you end up placing the blue 87-89 cohort in with the red 98-99 cohort, i.e. back at the MM list. There doesn't seem to be too much talk about the "final and binding" aspect of the arbitration/mediation protocol but I thought I'd throw this in. I wasn't happy with Keller either but it was a compromise that I could live with particularly since the group representing me had ACPA's protocol wishes essentially shoved down their throats. I would have been more than upset with my merger committee if they went back on their words about final and binding. This FACT has been highlighted by every judicial member reviewing this matter but the message that they are dishonouring themseves hasn't sunk in to the ACPA rump group yet. The $300M Air Ontario lawsuit will be a pittance compared to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jaydee, Dream on moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 GDR, I appreciate your input but there are a couple of areas where what seems at first to be obvious is not. Firstly, Canadian had a larger wide body base in YVR than AC did prior to the merge, so it isn't surprising that when you retired there would be a number of OCP types ahead of you on the 340 because these guys were flying left seats in 747's and DC10's in YVR before the merge. As for the "Mitchnick Effect" on Keller's ratio, are you aware that there are OCP pilots still prevented on the last bid from slotting into 340 F/O positions in YVR because of the RIR's acquired under the Mitchnick list? The 2 years that Mitchnick's list governed seniority is still being felt to the detrement of OCP seniority on Keller's list. A list isn't about one base. We are talking about a list that applied to the entire Air Canada group at all bases. It just happened that they were based in YVR. Theoretically they could all have moved to YYZ and taken all of the top jobs there. When the OCP pilots do get on the airplane they will still be going in on their Keller number. In the meantime they have the advantage of having much greater seniority on the 767 than they would have on the 340. I don't think that you can compare their situation with those who will be impacted by the Mitchnik factor for their entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 When the OCP pilots do get on the airplane they will still be going in on their Keller number. In the meantime they have the advantage of having much greater seniority on the 767 than they would have on the 340. I don't think that you can compare their situation with those who will be impacted by the Mitchnik factor for their entire career. Any pilot with the seniority to move on up to higher status equipment has a choice between seniority on type or higher pay etc. on the other type. Therefore the advantage of higher seniority on the 767 is only there if the pilot wants the seniority instead of the pay provided by the larger aircraft. As an aside, GDR, when I was hired by CP Air you were flying for Air Canada. We were both members of CALPA and at that time the CALPA merger policy was integration based on "Length of Service". Through all the emotional wrangling and money spent on merger litigation and arbitration since then, the Keller seniority list is pretty darn close to that criteria at most levels of seniority. It has always been my belief that the pilots themselves have caused most of their own seniority problems by allowing their own criteria for merger integration to be abandoned to narrow minded self interest and control of the process at each juncture to be assumed by a third party. If we had valued the wisdom of our own merger policy, we could have taken all the money spent on lawyers during successive mergers and thrown a huge party attended by new friends instead of bitter enemies, and the company would be stronger for it, as would the Pilot's Association. And the seniority list wouldn't look much different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nordo Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 at that time the CALPA merger policy was integration based on "Length of Service" Yes and didn't the orange crowd work hard to get it DOH because, surprise, surprise it worked better for them with their more frequent and longer layoffs? This merger mess goes back a long way,just ask Harry Steeles old employees or the transair guys. Nordo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jaydee "QUOTE (sustainable @ Jun 23 2005, 03:14 PM) The $300M Air Ontario lawsuit will be a pittance compared to this. LOL...and it will suffer the same fate..........discounted for the BS it really is. I think when the truth of this fiasco finally flushes out, ACAP pay offs and the like. the OAC group will have just cause to sue the OCP for back wages + mega damages etc etc. At least your right about one thing unsustainable, the 300 million $$$ law suit will look like peanuts in comparison. " I believe you're all missing the forest for the tree's. Lawsuits aside; there likely won't be an AC within a year. Does anyone really believe that people are going to continue to throw money at a labour sh!thole like AC. I would expect the best case scenario will see the OAC types paying some hefty fines and possibly find themselves jobless before this fiasco ends. The real world doesn't give a rats a$$ whether or not the OAC types are ever happy. The OAC like everyone else is seen as "labour"; evil but necessary. The Gov will move to support AC's coming application to replace them should they choose not to play ball with the corp. Bottom line OAC....you aren't special in todays reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I wish I had the kind of energy you all do - I would get a lot more done around the house. This fight has cost each side more than what they would have lost in almost any straight ratio I can imagine. What has it cost the families? What I see are ever more bitter people, trying to win this battle so they can justify everything they've done while enraged in this fight. It no longer matters about the money, or even the exact number, to many. The suffering is such high interest that there is no paying off the loan. It's about winning. Check out Ireland. These things can go on for a while.... The comment about AC's future are relevant. So is the comment about what might befall the self-entitled "OAC" leaders. These people are not leaders, they have no standing, yet they acknowledge that they attempted to directly interfere with the business of their employer, bias a constitutional vote of their union, used private member lists and contact information without the consent of ACPA, on and on. I doubt there is an AC pilot, regardless of what their former acronym is, OCP, OAC, CRA, ACRA, OTS, I've probably forgetten a few, who doesn't hold an opinion on this situation. Some hold it strongly. Opinion is one thing, action another. By taking the approach they have, the OAC leaders have, in my view, exposed themselves to whatever legal redress Air Canada and indeed ACPA may wish to take. I wonder if, before long, these troubled souls will have rendered their own seniority irrelevant. Here's hoping everyone takes a deep breath real soon and gets back to the business of building a successful, safe and fair workplace. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jaydee, I find it shocking that a so-called professional pilot can act like you are acting. With each post you make lately, you are sounding more and more childish. Your anger and hatred is really eating away at you. SAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 If we had valued the wisdom of our own merger policy, we could have taken all the money spent on lawyers during successive mergers and thrown a huge party attended by new friends instead of bitter enemies, and the company would be stronger for it, as would the Pilot's Association. Sort of like the OCP and ALPA and the fact that DOH was nowhere to be found in your merger policy, eh Starman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jaydee, Dream on moron. great well thought out reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussD Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 ......its the minority 1/3 that is worried...they can't stand hearing what I am saying cause in their guts they know I am right. Why you say?...because the status quo just can't exist any longer !! Finally this mess will soon be over and we can all get on with making this airline great again . Woooooo Hoooooooooo So waddya make of this comment pasted from another site. Other people who seem to be a bit less bi-polar than yourself have claimed the number is closer to 10%. I agree with Vsplat on this one. I think the perpetrators of this farce may very well be contending for numbers at the EI office. A poster on another site refers to a poll done by ACPA after the vote regarding the reason for the NO vote. Only 13% voted NO because of seniority issues! The majority of no voters did so because they thought it was a bad deal for the pilots in both pay and working conditions. AC didn't go to other groups of workers and insist that they take another hit, only the pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 So waddya make of this comment pasted from another site. Other people who seem to be a bit less bi-polar than yourself have claimed the number is closer to 10%. I agree with Vsplat on this one. I think the perpetrators of this farce may very well be contending for numbers at the EI office. A poster on another site refers to a poll done by ACPA after the vote regarding the reason for the NO vote. Only 13% voted NO because of seniority issues! The majority of no voters did so because they thought it was a bad deal for the pilots in both pay and working conditions. AC didn't go to other groups of workers and insist that they take another hit, only the pilots. I will give it a go. That post is from a different forum ( where one faction far outweighs the other ) and a sample vote of 160 or so pilots. Less than 10% of those who cast ballots. Any attempt to say that this is an accurate sampling is full of B.S and attempting to cloud the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jaydee, you can rationalize it however you want, but to me and I'm sure to other's you are acting like a child. You talk of spoiling your fun, where is the fun in cancelling the Boeing order? Where is the fun in the division within ACPA? Where is the fun in wanting to see other's suffer? You don't want justice, you want retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussD Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I will give it a go. That post is from a different forum ( where one faction far outweighs the other ) and a sample vote of 160 or so pilots. Less than 10% of those who cast ballots. Any attempt to say that this is an accurate sampling is full of B.S and attempting to cloud the issues. OK then if you say so. You're comments might be easier to accept if they made any sense tho. But you could be right about the veracity of the exit poll. It is probably about as accurate as the claim from some posters here that their opinion is representative of the vast majority of their peers. We know that is high grade bovine scatology (to quote our buddy Rainer) as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Sort of like the OCP and ALPA and the fact that DOH was nowhere to be found in your merger policy, eh Starman. I have always argued in favour of DOH being the best criteria for merging seniority and the best solution to stand the test of time. I argued this during the EPA merger process in 81/82 and was shouted down by most of my CP Air brethren at the time. After the integration of Nordair, PWA and CP (which went LOS by the way, except that the EPA guys were already discounted and remained so) the official CALPA policy became DOH. I believe DOH to be the most elegant solution to mergers because DOH is the criteria used by each and every company within their respective seniority lists. It is only when the sand shifts during mergers that the politics of greed allow some people to see opportunity by leapfrogging over the pilots from the other company that they are willing to abandon the criteria that governs their own seniority list for a one time gain. However, Length of Service is another time based solution with merit and I would have no problem supporting a LOS list right back to the PWA / Transair merger. To me, Keller is close enough and any perceived inequities in it will wash out with time. But no matter what I think and no matter what anyone else thinks, the Keller list is the legally binding list that we all work under and it will not change unless a court orders it. And the only courts with the authority to order it are the Federal Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 But no matter what I think and no matter what anyone else thinks, the Keller list is the legally binding list that we all work under and it will not change unless a court orders it. And the only courts with the authority to order it are the Federal Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Lets not forget the quasi-judicial CIRB as well. They kept an option to look at the Keller award as well to see if it complied with all the principles set out in D183. This has for whatever reason not been done yet. Not saying it will , just saying it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Is there a reason why the OAC group can't petition the CIRB instead of holding the company hostage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.