Scene at the labour board?

[Mitch Cronin]

"Who's turn is it?"

"I dunno, should we let Tipsky play?"

[Guest directlaw]

Mitch,

Well I would say that depends on your point of view.

Do you believe binding is binding? End of story. Even if the CIRB's own orders were not followed? Do you believe a binding protocol, between competing parties, is binding on the CIRB regardless of compliance?

Or do you believe that the CIRB has the responsibility to ensure their decisions and instructions are followed? Do you believe that the CIRB has a responsibility to ensure their arbitrators are held accountable for compliance of its own orders?

You forgot Edmonson. But I like the cartoon. It is a great analogy.

[Mitch Cronin]

That would seem to be the zillion dollar question, wouldn't it...

I'll tell you what I think... I think I'm too mouthy when it comes to many things... this issue, for example...

I think it's a damn shame that this dispute has been handled by both parties like it has been... It's sad.

None of you guys has yet pointed me to Teplitky's latest writings, or the most recent list, so I can't comment on what it would be.... but yes I believe the CIRB should indeed keep reigns on their arbitrators... however, due to all I've experienced so far from the CIRB, I don't believe there is any more chance that right will prevail, than there is for wrong.

And if binding isn't binding, I suppose if you have the money, you can buy another chance eh? ...and where will that end? When will binding be binding? Never? Endless employment for lawyers? ... at least until the union is broke I guess... ?

If the CIRB could be trusted to be what it ought to be... and if foxes were beagles....

It all rots. You guys should have done the deal-hammered-out-in-a-cottage-retreat thing.

[Guest Starman]

The CIRB has a responsibility to ensure that mergers between publicly traded companies are "fair and equitable" to both employee groups, and to ensure that precedents set will stand the test of time in regards to future mergers.

I have never been very impressed by the professionalism of any of the arbitrators that have affected my career stretching back to the CP Air / EPA merger, but the pilots have always allowed their destiny to be decided by third parties because they cannot agree on what is fair between themselves. The politics of greed have, in every case, overridden seniority criteria for integration that should permit an equitable balance of career paths for both groups.

There are a lot of eyes on the CIRB this week as they consider Martin Teplitsky's recommendations. I hope that their decision will allow future career paths to continue so that it won't matter in a few years whether a pilot was ex-CDN or OAC when it comes to the overall value of his or her career path.

[Guest directlaw]

I hope that their decision will allow future career paths to continue so that it won't matter in a few years whether a pilot was ex-CDN or OAC when it comes to the overall value of his or her career path.

Starman,

I completely agree with you but the present seniority list will not accomplish that. There is a glaring problem at the bottom of the list.

It is called 8:1.

A random example from the bottom 1/3 of the list. names removed.

OCP pilot. Retires in 2026. #2448 (2003)

Keller undiscounted # 2929

Mitchnick # 2981

According to Keller this OCP pilot was harmed by Mitchnick, 68 numbers for 2 years or 3 bids.

After Keller correction # 2448.

A 481 number gain for life (23 years) for being penalized 68 numbers for slightly less than 2 years.

OAC Pilot Retires in 2022. #2449 (2003)

Keller undiscounted #2243

Mitchnick #2157

According to Keller this OAC pilot had a 86# gain for 2 years or 3 bids.

After the Keller correction #2449

A 206 number loss for life (19 years) for having a 86# gain for 3 bids or 2 years.

The bottom of the list must be fixed or else in a few years it will still matter whether a pilot was ex CDN or OAC when it comes to overall value of his or her career path.

[Kip Powick]

Com'on now...you are trying to explain a near 6 year boon doggle by using one example that suits your argument, to someone who does not have ALL the documentation, data, charts, retirement projections etc., etc.

Why not leave this entire mess to those that have such info.?..you bias is really showing and does little to clarify an extremely volatile and complex issue.

[Guest Starman]

I've got to agree with Kip on your post. This example has to be looked at with a dynamic reference point over the next 19 years. How many of the 206 OCP's ahead of the OAC will have retired by then? How many have already retired? When the OCP guy retires in 2026, how many OCP will be left? There can't be many because this guy must be one of the youngest OCP on the list.

And what position did each of these pilots hold prior to the merger?

By the way, if your focus is on rearranging things in the bottom section where the 8:1 ratio exists, why does Teplitsky's list negatively impact guys with 35 years service?

[Guest directlaw]

Hit a nerve did I Kip.

That is all you got? Can't refute it can you?

It is all fact.

No bias at all. Just publishing the numbers. They speak for themselves. You can try and shoot the messenger if you like. But if you try I will just sing louder.

Check for yourself. You still have access to the ACPA web site don't you.

Go to- committees/Merger/ Keller Award Seniority List - No Re-Ratio and No Date Change October 17, 2000

All it is a seniority list comparison that gives each individuals Mitchnick, Keller, and undiscounted Keller number. Nothing else.

Very revealing.

I must say kip my example is from the bottom 1/3 of the list where the greatest problem exists. This huge discrepancy does not exist in the top 1/3.

But since you question my integrity.

I forgot to mention that in the above example Mr Keller places the two pilots 686 (21.4%) numbers apart on his undiscounted award. After his Mitchncik re ratio they are side by each.

Talk about a discount.

Really Kip. How do you expect the data would appear when the list is 8:1 for the bottom 1/3?

Go look for yourself.

[Kip Powick]

Hit a nerve did I Kip.

That is all you got? Can't refute it can you?

It is all fact.

No bias at all.

No you didn't hit a nerve. It is pretty obvious you are, shall we say, a bit uptight about the whole issue...I am not...it will not affect me no matter what happens. I just hate to see this get into a urinating match on a public forum because you well know, people that have more knowledge about the issue will flame you/me/whoever, because the subject is not something that is either black or white and there are more conversant individuals out there that can deal with the real facts/numbers.

A RED guy can use his data and a BLUE guy can use his...no one can win here and I know you know that, so why even start posting about it.

It merely inflames those that are going to be affected, one way or the other. Want to write about it??? Go back to the OAC/CP forum or the private RED forum but believe me you can't win this one, no one can..not on this board and I can see you gaining nothing from the topic...absolutely nothing...unless you consider a rise in blood pressure as a gain.

PS...I wouldn't even attempt to refute anything about this issue you post as I consider it a complete waste of bandwidth...let the experts fight it out, you/me?? we're just screaming in the wind...pointless.... and the next thing that will happen is individuals will start getting too personal and the trash talking starts...you have seen it I have seen it and everyone looks like a fool....no thanks.

[Guest Starman]

As long as we're using bandwidth to post educational facts; here's an interesting one:

If Teplitsky's list were to be implemented, from a merge point of a 1.76 : 1 ratio; in 4 years and 2 months from now there will be 61 OCP pilots left in the top 500 positions on the combined list.

Seniority lists show a snapshot in time, but they can only be understood over the span of a career.

[Guest Kilo Mike]

This example has to be looked at with a dynamic reference point over the next 19 years. - Starman

I have to ask something here. The OCP were adamant about not looking at future projections when it came to OAC's vastly deminished career's because -

'no one can predict the future and the status of the industry'.

Also Lordon and Keller has stated that retirements are not a equity consideration when it comes to list generation. So why are you asking now to assess Keller's list without the correction factors based on retirement position?

Quite frankly, 'projections' are completely useless as no one has a crystal ball in regards to our industry. Did anyone foresee SARS, 9-11 , and CCAA? To say that you have been wronged because you aren't going to retire at X number on the list. Well guess what. We could have another 9-11 in a couple of years , or another merger so why should someone be "artifically boosted' on the list to protect a hypothetical projection.

in 4 years and 2 months from now there will be 61 OCP pilots left in the top 500 positions on the combined list. - Starman

Is this not the exact thing Kip was accusing DL for? You pick out a snippet that suits your purpose. That question has several rebutals, but it still just comes down to trying to predict the future when there is no way you can.

We are going to be using the Keller list ... without the corrections ... They have already served their purpose due to industry realities and are no longer needed.

[buzz]

That question has several rebutals, but it still just comes down to trying to predict the future when there is no way you can.

We are going to be using the Keller list ... without the corrections ... They have already served their purpose due to industry realities and are no longer needed.

Not so - retirements are indeed predictable. You hit retirement age and POOF you're gone.

I'd be interested in hearing you spin 61 positions out of 500 as being fair. The data isn't any prettier in the years that follow, either. As directlaw points out in an earlier post, Keller undiscounted is Mitchnick for all intents and purposes. You just found a name that sounds better.

And as far as your last sentence, I'd say you're whistlin' in the graveyard. My money's on the CIRB squashing this abberation. Got my chequebook ready for further contributions to the lawyer-types if that's where you want to go after that, since I'll bet we haven't seen the last of this either way it goes.

b

[Guest rattler]

Not so - retirements are indeed predictable.  You hit retirement age and POOF you're gone. 

b

Buzz: Seems that you could be wrong about retirement being predictable.

Retirement Age could raise.

I wonder how that would / will skew the numbers what with those who will leave at 60 and those who will stay on if they are allowed to.

[buzz]

Doesn't change a thing. Retirement age 60 vs 65, whatever, everyone ages one day at a time. If you were going to retire #200 at 60, then you'll do no worse than that if they move the goalposts (assuming, of course, that you make it that far), or even better as other pilots senior to you medical out or take early retirement.

That's why I intentionally used "retirement age" instead of saying 60.

b

edit - sp

[Guest rattler]

Doesn't change a thing. Retirement age 60 vs 65, whatever, everyone ages one day at a time. If you were going to retire #200 at 60, then you'll do no worse than that if they move the goalposts (assuming, of course, that you make it that far), or even better as other pilots senior to you medical out or take early retirement.

That's why I intentionally used "retirement age" instead of saying 60.

b

edit - sp

You may be right but the interesting thing could be the effect - or + on the juniors depending on how many senior pilots take their retirement at 60 and how may elect to continue to 65. One common thread over the past few years involved the impact or non impact (depending on which award folks were talking about) due to the large number of pilots who were going to retire at 60. If this changes, there must be some sort of effect + or - depending on which award one favours.

Anyway, just an observation from a "non participant".

[Guest directlaw]

Not so - retirements are indeed predictable.  You hit retirement age and POOF you're gone. 

I'd be interested in hearing you spin 61 positions out of 500 as being fair.  The data isn't any prettier in the years that follow, either.  As directlaw points out in an earlier post, Keller undiscounted is Mitchnick for all intents and purposes.  You just found a name that sounds better.

And as far as your last sentence, I'd say you're whistlin' in the graveyard.  My money's on the CIRB squashing this abberation.  Got my chequebook ready for further contributions to the lawyer-types if that's where you want to go after that, since I'll bet we haven't seen the last of this either way it goes.

b

Buzz,

On an earlier post you stated that the difference for you, between Keller undiscounted and Mitchnick, was about 50 numbers. You also stated this is a 15% drop for you.

This situation only happens once on the list so it is very easy to identify your general location on the list

Fortunately there is no one on the OCP side that has exactly a 50 number difference.

I will use a 49 number difference.

This individual will retire in 2022.

He was a junior 737 FO (74%) in YYZ on Oct 17th 2000

His over all percentage on the CAIL list was 91.47% pre merge.

His Keller undiscounted # 2933

His Mitchnick # 2982

According to Keller he was penalized 49 numbers for 2 years.

He gained 482 numbers or 15% for life during the Mitchnick correction. This is in addition to the Keller uncorrected list.

His Keller corrected #2451

He is now showing Boeing 767 FO on Bid 05-01. To be trained April 06.

Now lets look at the closest OAC pilot on the YYZ base for comparison.

This individual will retire in 2025

He was a mid level 767 FO (54%) in YYZ on Oct. 17th 2000

His overall percentage on the OAC list was 68.70% pre merger.

His Keller undiscounted # 2249

His Mitchnick #2164

According to Keller he was 85 numbers too senior for 2 years.

He lost 205 numbers for life during the Mitchncik correction. This is in addition to the Keller uncorrected list.

His Keller corrected #2454

He is no longer on the YYZ base. If he was he would be a 767 FO at 75%

Keller in his undiscounted list placed these two individuals 684 numbers apart. After his discounting they ended up side by each.

Keller was supposed to match likes with likes yet as you can see in this case he matched a junior OCP 737 FO with a mid level OAC 767 FO.

[Guest Starman]

"He lost 205 numbers for life during the Mitchncik correction. This is in addition to the Keller uncorrected list."

You can't lose 205 numbers for life unless all 205 pilots are younger than you. This is a good example of snapshot analysis when a comprehensive analysis of the two positions over a career span tells the true story.

[Guest directlaw]

Starman,

This is at the bottom 1/3 of the list where the majority have about 15-20 years to go. And the average age is similar. Unlike the middle of the list.

Ok so it is a snap shot. I agree.

"This is a good example of snapshot analysis when a comprehensive analysis of the two positions over a career span tells the true story."

Very true. But shouldn't each snap shot through out the career span reflect equity? Is that not the intent of your assertion?

Do you see a problem with the picture it illuminates?

This is why we are where we are today. The no vote was a revolt from the bottom. The same group that isn't going away for a long time.

[Dropzone]

Oooooooohhhhh my head is aching, I'm tired and I wanna go to bed...

[buzz]

He was a mid level 767 FO (54%) in YYZ on Oct. 17th 2000

For starters, I'm guessing that the OAC position you refer to was his APOS, not QPOS on Oct 17, 2000 (the words "Hail Mary Bid" and "Wide Body Bid" come to mind), while the 737F/O actually held and worked that position. I'll bet your guy was something other than a mid seniority 767 F/O in real terms. Those two overinflated bids were just another BS grab by the OAC guys with their hands on the CMSC tiller.

So once you line up the QPOS likes with likes (OAC R/P's and RJ pilots out of the mix, since CAIL had neither), Keller discounted was pretty much on the mark, perhaps even too generous. I think the pi$$ off factor for y'all is guys like me who are exCRA types, as we seem to be where the largest share of the hammering occurs. And for the record, I'm collecting 9 year scale, and I'm still an R/P. Big windfall.

Not.

[Guest Kilo Mike]

'a comprehensive analysis of the two positions over a career span tells the true story.'

- Starman

Ok .... Just how does one 'do' a comprehensive analysis over a whole career. What assumptions do you figure on using Starman? That the fleet will stay absolutely fixed and there will be absolutely no economic effects on ACE? I mean come on now. Each of the arbitrators have stated that you need to make the list equitable as of the merger date( pick one..any one ) to allow everyone to advance equally with the ebb and flow of the industry and company. Any hypotheticals about the future are just that ... hypotheticals and not absolutes so you can't quantify them towards a list.

To say that you'll retire at number 'x' in so many years has so many assumptions, one of which is that the company will even be here. I'd have thought CCAA would have given that arguement a good shot of cold water.

For Buzz.

<groan>

You work under Article 25 ... but you already knew that. The rest of your rhetorical drivel doesnt' rate comment.

[UpperDeck]

But, all of these "facts" aside, you miss the point of the exercise.

The Board took the position that the parties agreed between themselves that any arbitrated award would be FINAL. What is it that you don't understand?

Everyone wants to look beyond themselves to some infallible source for incontrovertible answers to the issues posed.

IT DOESN'T EXIST!!

Think about it, guys! You and your ex enter into an agreement re: child custody; property division and spousal support. You are both represented by competent counsel. A year later --she decides (or a new lawyer decides) ---she didn't get enough. She seeks a review. The Court decides to look at "all of the circumstances". You say; "But we had a deal!!"

See...we ride a slippery slope. When is "final" actually "final"? It's all well and good when it suits your purposes but when the result is less than desireable, you want to "open the gates".

I sincerely hope that the Courts will recognize that the preferred avenue is to respect (and promote) private resolutions to private disputes. In the absence of unconscionability, the parties should be left with the results and consequences of their own agreement.

In this instance, the parties agreed upon binding arbitration. The parties should live with the consequences of their own decisions. Period!!

[moeman]

All of this hinges on many things which nobody can predict. If AC never has one more pilot than they have today, never has one more aircraft than they have today, nobody ever chooses to stay on a narrow-body aircraft or as an RP instead of moving up to whatever your rpedictions dictate he/she should, and nobody ever retires before they absolutely have to, well then things might work out nice and tidy as all these experts' numbers predict.

But what if ACE expands so much with umpteen wide-body aircraft more than they have today, there are requirements for hundreds more drivers than they have now, everybody gets to spread out across the wider spectum than they would have had ACE remained stagnant, many decide to retire instead of facing the extra long-haul flying required of them, etc........, then all these numbers get thrown out the window and all this worry about retiring X numbers more junior than you would have with Mitchnick or Keller or Teplitsky or whoever comes next will be for naught.

And as KM says, we might not even have a seniority number to fight over in a few years.

Geez guys. In the end, are things really all that bad? If so, we all have choices we can make instead of "suffering" undue hardships. If not, perhaps everybody's just arguing for the sake of arguing right now.

[Guest Starman]

KM and company: A seniority list is a line up; nothing more. Economic factors affecting the company's performance can have a huge effect on individual pilot careers, but the numbers remain the same. If you put 3500 pilots in a line and they all have to retire at 60 (maybe 65 by the time you guys are ready for a gold watch), it is completely predictable what number they will have at the time of retirement, and indeed, at any point throughout their careers. The only thing that will change that is medical problems, resignations, and terminations.

That's why a competent arbitrator must look at the dynamic change to the seniority list over time. When one side of the issue has a higher average age, it is a benefit to the other side.

When CDN merged with Air Canada, approximately 1200 pilots were blended into the total, and immediately the company had to hire more pilots because those 1200 were more productive on average than under the ACPA contract and the added route structure required man power to complete the block hours. Now, it can be argued that some of that work has disappeared through cutbacks and reduction of route duplication, but 1/3 of the orignal CDN group has already retired and many more are on the way out soon. At a certain point the work added by the CDN route network and the synergy provided creates more jobs for Air Canada pilots than will be filled by ex-CDN pilots. Now, if you are a younger OAC pilot, or a post merger hire, that work represents increased career opportunities for the remainder of your working life.

If you spend 5 years behind the system percentile curve, and the next 15 ahead of it, your initial percentile snapshot may not look too beneficial to you, but in the overall picture you're way ahead of the guy who shows an initial percentile gain only to retire a few years later as an F/O. And when you consider that the systemwide percentile includes RJ's and RP positions at AC, when neither were comparable to any OCP positions, the picture is even better for the OAC crowd.

I think that from now on all seniority lists should be published with an animation feature. Just push play from any number and see how that person's position evolves over time. If you look at any individual position to estimate what job that person could hold at age 40, 45, 50, 55, and 58 (the last chance for a bid change), you get a much better picture of how that person has been treated by the merger Gods. And on that basis it is an extremely rare OAC pilot who is worse off than his Blue counterpart.

When the companies merged, we both operated 747-400's to overseas destinations at the top end of the seniority list. If Teplitsky's list is implemented there will only be 61 ex-CDN pilots in the top 500 in four years. It doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to see the imbalance in that. And it shouldn't take the CIRB more than half an hour to put this exercise in one sided mediation where it belongs.

However, I have been around long enough to know that pressure works when spines are weak. Luckily though, in the end, it is the rule of law that governs, and this case is a slam dunk if it gets to the courts again.

[QFE]

But, all of these "facts" aside, you miss the point of the exercise.

The Board took the position that the parties agreed between themselves that any arbitrated award would be FINAL. What is it that you don't understand?

Proving, once again, that history repeats itself.

What gets me is that while the OCP pilots fight with the OAC pilots over "binding arbitration" they continue to help the OAC pilots with financing (ACPA dues) to defend against the lawsuit from the Air Ontario pilots over "binding arbitration".