Seeker Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Well, it's been a couple of days and no one has started a thread yet so I guess I will. For those who don't know....as a result of the June 13th meeting between ALPA and ACPA, ACPA sent a letter to ALPA stating that no further meetings on the subject of GS would take place unless ALPA agreed to three conditions in advance; ALPA must agree to BOTL, ALPA must agree that representation would be decided by vote and the class action lawsuit must be withdrawn. I can understand trying to get ALPA to agree to the first two conditions but looking for the third seems a bit out to lunch. Either ACPA doesn't understand or believe that the lawsuit is a private matter neither sanctioned or supported by ALPA or they really don't want an agreement and are placing impossible demands to stonewall. The Jazz ALPA MEC's reponse is one of incredulity. How can ACPA expect ALPA to agree to these things as a precondition to even meeting. One would expect that the meeting would be the time and place to decide the terms. Anyway, it seems after all these years, CCAA, Teplitsky and everything else, that we are in exactly the same spot as we were 10 years ago. I can't see any place where progress has been made toward some sort of integration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 2033 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 'Either ACPA doesn't understand or believe that the lawsuit is a private matter neither sanctioned or supported by ALPA or they really don't want an agreement and are placing impossible demands to stonewall.' - seeker ..or ACPA realizes that an agreement wouldn't have a chance in H- E- double hockey sticks of passing with the membership without these conditions. Unlike ALPA, these things would have to pass a vote. Why waste resources and everybodies time if these basic things can't be agree'd to before hand. If you want the stonewall part ... Talk to the ALPA folks taking part in these discussions that happen to be also sueing ACPA. Kind of makes their lawsuit difficult if the groups negotiate a mergering of lists dontcha think? ... Hence the history of adding some retarded demand at the midnight hour when everything was thought to be all worked out. I'll say it again that the Jazz folks 'have grounds' to explore legal action against these rogue Jazz pilot's that are sewering any chance of advancing the pilot groups in ACE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 2033 2033?? It might never be solved. Learning the Status Quo Start with a cage containing five monkeys. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey will make an attempt with the same response - all of the monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Keep this up for several days. Turn off the cold water. If, later, another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it even though no water sprays them. Now, remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Replace the third original monkey with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys which have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs. Why not? "Because that's the way it's always been done around here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Wouldn't those ACPA members not named in the lawsuit have some recourse when there careers are harmed the next time ACE plays one side off against the other because ACPA won't even sit down with ALPA? That's a rhetorical question by the way, I know the answers we'll get from those interested parties. Finger pointing and shift the blame, the company gains and ALL pilot's lose. 2033 before you'll see a resolution. The last litigant and defendant of the infamous lawsuit will be retired from ACE, and can continue from the old age home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 I'll say it again that the Jazz folks 'have grounds' to explore legal action against these rogue Jazz pilot's that are sewering any chance of advancing the pilot groups in ACE. Personally, I feel that the lawsuit is disruptive, antagonistic and short-sighted but it is also a legal and valid response to, what is perceived by the claimants, to be a failure to honor a contract. By "valid" I don't mean that I think it was a good idea, that I think they will win or even if they do win that any of us would be better off. By "valid" I mean that it's possible to understand the frame of mind that lead to the decision to hire a lawyer and sue. I cannot see where you think that there is an opportunity for legal action on the part of those Jazz pilots that are disadvantaged by the presence of the lawsuit. Can you clarify where you see an lawsuit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.70 mach Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Here I have question, does everyone at ACPA pay into support for the lawsuit regardless if they are involved? If everyone does then when the final details are worked out between both parties and an agreement is formed between ACPA /ALPA then just include another 1300 pilots from JAZZ to "pony up" as well. Would be interesting to see someone at Jazz paying from both sides. On a separate issue I have a "friend" that will be leaving Jazz for the mainline very soon. If they did every get around to joining the lists what would happen to all the Jazz pilots that left would they fall at the bottom of the Jazz list, ahead of everyone on the Jazz list or back to their position from the connectors? I was told by a Captain that my "friend" is taking a big chance at leaving and could wind up at the very bottom of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 I think that no matter what else happens, the BOTL condition will stand. Those that left for AC will always be ahead of the most senior Jazz pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 'I was told by a Captain that my "friend" is taking a big chance at leaving and could wind up at the very bottom of everyone.' Oh man.. Are they bringing those arguements out again? It's the same stuff that has been circulated during 'every' attempt at reconcilling lists: Picher, Adams etc ... The bottom line is decide what's right for you and make a choice. BOTL is BOTL at the time of agreement ... not pre-dated. Seeker has the jist, hence the impitus for the Jazz folks to get this figured out. The thing to remember is everyone at Jazz has just been given 'another' chance to apply in order of seniority and made 'their' personal choice that's right for them. I'll get back to you Seeker regarding your question after I've chatted with someone a bit more 'in the know'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropzone Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 it is also a legal and valid response to, what is perceived by the claimants, to be a failure to honor a contract. The courts have already ruled on the validity of the "contract" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 The courts have already ruled on the validity of the "contract" argument. I didn't say the argument was valid, I said the response to the belief that the contract was broken was valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropzone Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I said the response to the belief that the contract was broken was valid. As is the belief on both sides that the lawsuit is patently absurd and driven not by logic but by raw emotional hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 As is the belief on both sides that the lawsuit is patently absurd and driven not by logic but by raw emotional hatred. Yes, that could be true. Remember though, it was ACPA's actions that created that hatred. The AC pilots thought that might was right and that they could act with impunity. Those who felt betrayed by this attitude responded in the only legal way they could. The lawsuit and the actions that precipitated it are both equally embarrassing, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropzone Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Yes, that could be true. Remember though, it was ACPA's actions that created that hatred. The AC pilots thought that might was right and that they could act with impunity. Those who felt betrayed by this attitude responded in the only legal way they could. The lawsuit and the actions that precipitated it are both equally embarrassing, IMO. The MADNESS of it all it appears, will never end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ikfu Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Yes, that could be true. Remember though, it was ACPA's actions that created that hatred. The AC pilots thought that might was right and that they could act with impunity. Those who felt betrayed by this attitude responded in the only legal way they could. The lawsuit and the actions that precipitated it are both equally embarrassing, IMO. THAT is a very skewed viewpoint, and entirely untrue. There were ample opportunities for compromise, but the feeders were always right in their own minds. You are so wrong with that statement, but I'm tired of the discussion to a point where it has become one where people will believe whatever they want to believe anyway. Just be confident that with that line nothing can happen, and that is a large part of the reason that nothing will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 A s opposed to the I diotic R hetoric and crap that has come O ut of the mouths of the N arrow-minded T otally self-serving A rrogant and Cry-baby senior ex-Great Lakes pilots who don't R eally care about anybody but their own I deals and the hell with the rest of the more junior types. O h I doubt that it is just ACPA to blame. Russ go look in the mirror, you are no better or worse than any of these ACPA members that you chastise on this forum. You are exactly the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Errr... scuse me? ...Wot? Is that a star on your belly? ...Yeah, what of it? Oh well... Puh!... Whuah! ...(bloody peasant.) SAY WHot! In't that a bloody star on your back!? Yeah, well, that's on me back, in't it! Not on me bloody belly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 help help I'm being repressed SHUT UP BLOODY PEASANT! Oh did you hear that what a giveaway I am surprised by the thin-skinned vollies on this issue. Sticks and stones and all that. It is going to take a real miracle to bring these parties together if the attitudes exhibited here are any indication... CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 THAT is a very skewed viewpoint, and entirely untrue. There were ample opportunities for compromise, but the feeders were always right in their own minds. You are so wrong with that statement, but I'm tired of the discussion to a point where it has become one where people will believe whatever they want to believe anyway. Just be confident that with that line nothing can happen, and that is a large part of the reason that nothing will happen. ikfu: I am not a party to this lawsuit on either side, just one of the other thousands of pilots who have been affected by it. As I said I am embarrassed by the actions both groups have taken but I find it especially ironic that the AC pilots can point their fingers at the "Rotten B@stards" who are sueing them without acknowledging their own part in creating this situation. The lawsuit was a reaction to something the AC pilots did. Do you agree with that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Good grief. So this is a lawsuit because events prevented the AO pilots from working with the Air Canada pilots. Having read this tripe again and again over the years, I think it's a great thing for safety that these two pilot groups have been separated. I can't imagine being in a cockpit with an evironment as toxic as these attitudes suggest. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 . . . . I can't imagine being in a cockpit with an evironment as toxic as these attitudes suggest. Right-oh. Then I guess you havent heard about some of the fun when a 'you're lucky to have a job' former CAIL captain and a 'that is my seat you're sitting in' former AC captain were scheduled to fly together. Ahh, the sounds of silence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Not sure what your point is here... Are you trying to imply that there is a safety problem at AC? If so, tread lightly, sir, as that is a very serious charge. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Vsplat - serious reply. Did I touch a nerve? Of course I was referring to the cockpit discussion of which pilot gets the business section of the Aircraft Operating Manual first. What did you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Does implying a safety problem touch a nerve? If it doesn't then we truly are in trouble. As for the sarcasm, to each his/her own, I guess.... Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 Good grief. So this is a lawsuit because events prevented the AO pilots from working with the Air Canada pilots. Having read this tripe again and again over the years, I think it's a great thing for safety that these two pilot groups have been separated. I can't imagine being in a cockpit with an evironment as toxic as these attitudes suggest. Vs Vs: That's a vague response to a specific question. How convenient to wash your hands in the characterization, "events prevented the AO pilots from working with the Air Canada pilots." Well, no actually, it wasn't "events", it was the individual pilots at AC deciding to ignore Picher's decision and to de-certify from CALPA. I often hear, in person, and on this forum about how the lawsuit is the impediment. I have never heard any acknowledgement that the de-certification was causal. Cause and effect. You may not like the effect and the effect may have been totally unexpected but you cannot deny what caused it. To re-iterate, I think the lawsuit was a bad idea and that it has been an impediment but the AC pilots who are being sued are not innocent victums by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.