Scene at the labour board?

[Guest directlaw]

Starman,

Are you talking Mapping or seniority equity?

If you are talking mapping it was rejected by even Mr. Keller. (for those who don't know ALPA proposed something they called mapping at the last arbitration. It basically consisted of each group following their own retirements. It was rejected one because it would require constant list changes and two because it assumed future expectations which we all know evaporated for both sides when we merged.)

If you are talking seniority equity over time then once again you are assuming future expectations. Something that has been repeatedly rejected. All our expectations, yours, mine, changed overnight on Jan 04, 2000.

D183 - Match jobs with Jobs on Oct. 17 2000.

But just to play around with your idea of seniority equity over time rather than on Oct. 17th 2000.

Since the OCP pilot doing the same job, on the same equipment, on the same base (pre merger) is now 702 numbers senior to me how will there ever be equity between the two of us? Even over time? ( yes buzz I really was in that position pre merge)

Remember I am junior. The majority of the pilots around me are 40ish. I am in the the 8:1 ratio area. Because of the 8:1 ratio there are only 87 OCP pilots between me and my match. Even if everyone one of them retires tomorrow I will still be 615 numbers junior to him. This will never change. Ever.

So at what point in my career time line do I get seniority equity with the guy doing the same job on the same base as specified in D183?

[Dropzone]

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?

I guess you just don't want to recognize that Keller's "binding award" was FLAWED!

[rudder]

I guess you just don't want to recognize that Keller's "binding award" was FLAWED!

So was Feller, and Munroe, and Teplitsky, and every other arbitrated list in the history of aviation. Were any of them overturned?

Nope.

[Jaydee]

I guess you just don't want to recognize that Keller's "binding award" was FLAWED!

Nor do they want to admit the Mitchnik award was "supposed" to be final either !

[Kip Powick]

Just for clarification..

MITCHNIK was not signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

KELLER was signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

Not that it really seems to matter......I guess

[AME]

Just for clarification..

MITCHNIK was not signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

KELLER was signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

Not that it really seems to matter......I guess

Just like Picher???

[Guest directlaw]

Kip,

Neither protocol was supposed to be binding on the CIRB. They argued before the Federal court during the Mitchnick judicial review that a binding protocol, between competing parties, could not be binding on them. It would prevent the CIRB from fulfilling its government legislated responsibility. The Federal Court agreed with them. They also sent a letter to both merger committees prior to the Keller arbitration reiterating that position. Stating they would not be bound by the agreement and they reserve the right and responsibility to make sure board orders were followed. Both groups went into the Keller arbitration with the expectation that the outcome was subject to board scrutiny.

I think what we are missing here is that the board feels they can do whatever it pleases whenever it pleases.

First case in point.

Doing a complete 180 on whether they were bound by the Keller protocol. In complete contradiction they all of a sudden decided they were bound by the protocol signed by the competing parties. Therefor no review would take place. ACPA's judicial review on the issue was rejected by the courts even though in a previous judicial review the courts stated the board could not be bound by such an agreement.

Second case in point.

They have done a complete 180 again. First rejecting every attempt by ACPA to have a review of the Keller award. Now stating to all parties involved they believe they can do as they please, once again, even if it means a complete contradiction to previous statements and rulings.

It is my understanding that the board has made it clear, recently, that it feels it can basically do anything it pleases. All parties have been told this.

So far the courts have done nothing to prevent them from doing so. They appear to just not want to get involved in what is CIRB responsibility.

[Guest Skirt]

Just for clarification..

MITCHNIK was not signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

KELLER was signed by both negotiating teams as "Final and Binding"

Not that it really seems to  matter......I guess

Just for clarification..

KELLER was supposed to follow D183!

Not that it really seems to matter......I guess

[Guest Starman]

directlaw, I'm not talking about seniority mapping which causes variations in list numbers as retirements cull the herd. If you have 3500 boats in a line, the tide comes in and the tide goes out affecting all the boats equally, but the line doesn't change except that the blue boats disappear faster, leaving a line of red boats on to ply their trade on the high seas.

"Since the OCP pilot doing the same job, on the same equipment, on the same base (pre merger) is now 702 numbers senior to me how will there ever be equity between the two of us? Even over time? ( yes buzz I really was in that position pre merge)

Remember I am junior. The majority of the pilots around me are 40ish. I am in the the 8:1 ratio area. Because of the 8:1 ratio there are only 87 OCP pilots between me and my match. Even if everyone one of them retires tomorrow I will still be 615 numbers junior to him. This will never change. Ever."

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your pre-merger position was on the 767 in YYZ. This brings up the issue of seniority inversion between hub bases. At CDN, YVR was not a base requiring much of a seniority premium, whereas it always has at AC, and it's getting that way again. So in YYZ, pre-merger you might have a CDN guy on the 767 with the same seniority as his counterpart in YVR, not so at AC, so the fact that you held the same job does not mean that you held the same seniority position within your company at the time.

Let's look at your current situation. You don't like being in the 8 : 1 zone, but if all the OCP guys retire between yourself and your self described counterpart, you'll be in a ratio of 600 : 1, but you'll be better off by 87 numbers. The 615 guys between you are OAC guys, and they won't get out of your way under any circumstances other than medical etc. The OCP guys are retiring at a rapid rate, leaving their positions behind to be filled by the remaining pilots in the system. Air Canada's seniority list, pre-merger, was governed by a solid, time honoured, demographically sound criteria; date of hire. As the OCP guys retire, they will leave their block hours and their positions for you to operate until you retire, and at that point the only guys between you and the job you want will be your own OAC peers who were hired before you.

If a red river and a blue river have a confluence, creating a larger river with more water flowing through it, the water continues on from either source at the same pace. But if the blue river was half the size and has twice the evaporation rate, eventually the red river water drops have to flow at a faster rate to compensate for the blue drops getting evaporated.

I'm sure that you'd like to see me and my ex-CDN peers evaporate more quickly (...immediately, I'm sure you'll say), but I can assure you, we're doing the best we can, as you are, to have an enjoyable life, to take satisfaction in the work we do for our company and our customers, and to reach a comfortable retirement...

[Guest directlaw]

directlaw, I'm not talking about seniority mapping which causes variations in list numbers as retirements cull the herd. If you have 3500 boats in a line, the tide comes in and the tide goes out affecting all the boats equally, but the line doesn't change except that the blue boats disappear faster, leaving a line of red boats on to ply their trade on the high seas.

"Since the OCP pilot doing the same job, on the same equipment, on the same base (pre merger) is now 702 numbers senior to me how will there ever be equity between the two of us? Even over time? ( yes buzz I really was in that position pre merge)

Remember I am junior. The majority of the pilots around me are 40ish. I am in the the 8:1 ratio area. Because of the 8:1 ratio there are only 87 OCP pilots between me and my match. Even if everyone one of them retires tomorrow I will still be 615 numbers junior to him. This will never change. Ever."

I'll go out on a limb and guess that your pre-merger position was on the 767 in YYZ. This brings up the issue of seniority inversion between hub bases. At CDN, YVR was not a base requiring much of a seniority premium, whereas it always has at AC, and it's getting that way again. So in YYZ, pre-merger you might have a CDN guy on the 767 with the same seniority as his counterpart in YVR, not so at AC, so the fact that you held the same job does not mean that you held the same seniority position within your company at the time.

Let's look at your current situation. You don't like being in the 8 : 1 zone, but if all the OCP guys retire between yourself and your self described counterpart, you'll be in a ratio of 600 : 1, but you'll be better off by 87 numbers. The 615 guys between you are OAC guys, and they won't get out of your way under any circumstances other than medical etc. The OCP guys are retiring at a rapid rate, leaving their positions behind to be filled by the remaining pilots in the system. Air Canada's seniority list, pre-merger, was governed by a solid, time honoured, demographically sound criteria; date of hire. As the OCP guys retire, they will leave their block hours and their positions for you to operate until you retire, and at that point the only guys between you and the job you want will be your own OAC peers who were hired before you.

If a red river and a blue river have a confluence, creating a larger river with more water flowing through it, the water continues on from either source at the same pace. But if the blue river was half the size and has twice the evaporation rate, eventually the red river water drops have to flow at a faster rate to compensate for the blue drops getting evaporated.

I'm sure that you'd like to see me and my ex-CDN peers evaporate more quickly (...immediately, I'm sure you'll say), but I can assure you, we're doing the best we can, as you are, to have an enjoyable life, to take satisfaction in the work we do for our company and our customers, and to reach a comfortable retirement...

Starman,

That is very poetic. And yes you went out on a limb. I am and was YVR based.

All I want to know is when do I get seniority equality with my match as outlined in D183? Your the one who has claimed that it all sorts its self out over time. Snap shots don't due justice to the complexity of the issue as it were.

So when do I get seniority equality with the OCP guy, on the YVR base, doing the same job, at the same percentile? Like I said he is presently 702 numbers my senior. Even if all OCP between us retire tomorrow the closest seniority equality will be is 615 numbers. ( a 20% difference)

So when does this magical confluence of the rivers take place? How will I ever be matched with this individual as mandated in D183?

D183 states that the list is to be constructed using likes with likes. It also gives the Date of Oct. 17th 2000. I am giving you a lot of liberty here by accepting the argument of "equity over time" or " over the career path time line" rather than on a specific date as outlined in D183. I am doing it for the sole purpose of displaying that even over time there is not equity.

You have said it works out "over time" through retirements. So when do I get equality according to D183?

Won't my match always be 20% my senior?

[Guest Starman]

OK, sorry for making an incorrect assumption, but if you were YVR based on Oct 17, 2000, what was your operating position? RP? CDN didn't have any RP's before the merger. And was the OCP you make reference to at the same position percentile as you? How many numbers on the base are you behind this guy?

If you're YVR based, even with base shrinkage (some of it totally unjustified), you have a lot more route variety than you had pre-merger. As the OCP guys retire, you'll have those routes to fly on for the remainder of your career.

In four years, there will only be about 450 OCP guys remaining in the system. The block hours flown by OCP pilots now are way more than can be flown with only 450 pilots. You do the math. As time goes on the picture gets better and better, and redder and redder.

[Guest directlaw]

Junior 320. My match is the same percentile on the same equipment on the same base.

Route variety is nice.

When do I get seniority equity with my match based on D183? You claim it will happen......when?

"In four years, there will only be about 450 OCP guys remaining in the system. The block hours flown by OCP pilots now are way more than can be flown with only 450 pilots. You do the math. As time goes on the picture gets better and better, and redder and redder."

Yup. But my match will still be 20% my senior. Actually 22% because none of those 87 OCP pilots will have retired yet.

So if not now. Not in four years. That is two snap shots now. When?

When does this magical confluence of the rivers take place? When in my "career path time line "do I get seniority equity with my match based on D183?

[Dork]

Directlaw,

The answer is simple...never.

[Guest Kilo Mike]

'CDN didn't have any RP's before the merger.' - Starman.

Actually Starman, when you took on the ACPA contract, you gained these positions since article 25 is part of the package. If an equipment bid would have been run at the still separate Cdn, there would have been folks placed in those positions. The same goes for the RJ.

So you have a choice. If you want to talk pre-takeover contract stuff like having DC-10's and no RP pilots etc, then we can say that you had a massive pay raise since you would have been technically still working under the ol' Cdn payscale and on the verge of collapse. So much for the winding river theory eh? If you want to go from the position that you weren't going under and that the $$$ issue is moot because we were all under the same formula pay rates, then you in effect had the potential for RP's and rj pilots as they were part of the contract you are promoting your position from. Teplitsky actually supports this concept:

' .. given the CIRB's view that both parties brought relatively equal amounts to the table at the effective date of the integration of the seniority lists. ' - Teplitsky report

In addition, route authorities aren't attached to employee's and companies. As you are well aware, it's the government that dispenses them. So why do you try to use these route authorites as some sort of justification for a seniority premium? You realize that the converse is equally ludicrous don't you? What if these routes lose money big time and the company stop's flying them ... Using your logic would require the effected employee's to be given a seniority discount because 'their' routes aren't contributing to the bottom line. Doesn't make sense now does it. The bottom line is if these routes work out well, then all employee's should, and will benefit from the companies growth and the results have absolutely no bearing on a seniority position.

The thing to remember is that Teplitsky isn't changing the equipment groupings that Keller created. Whether you had, or didn't have RP's etc doesn't matter as the grouping catagories have already been decided and are fixed. What we're talking about is removing the Mitchnik correction factors as they are no longer required. They have served their purpose in compensating the OCP for the 2 years under Mitchnik.

'Each group has now had either a premium, or discount for approximately 2 years, although the blue pilot's advantage continues on.' - Teplitsky report

The fact remains that 18% of the OCP are still going to be in higher rated positions than they would be had Keller been the list from the get go. This supports your 'winding river' anology, but thankfully not at the complete expense of the OAC pilot group.

[Guest Starman]

The pay issue is a red herring. We do the same work under the same contract. We get paid what you get paid. Would you prefer that AC's rates decreased to the CDN contract levels? In 1992, CDN pilots made more than AC pilots. Since then, we took contract cuts during re-structuring that reduced our pay to below our AC counterparts. Since the merge, Air Canada filed for CCAA and our pay was reduced from the ACPA contract levels. Do you fly the aircraft any less professionally because your pay was cut? Do you think that should have any bearing on future merger integrations? And don't tell me that there's no way we'll ever merge again. I heard that one from other CP Air guys after the EPA merger.

In directlaw's case, if he was a junior A320 F/O on Oct 17, 2000 in YVR, he was hired in 1998. His CDN counterpart was likely hired in 1988. I realize that there are individual variations and that there is always someone who is dealt a bad hand by demographics, but on average it stands to reason that the CDN guys are about 10 years older than their OAC counterparts in the right seat of the A320, and that means that on average the OAC guy will benefit from the flying left behind by the OCP guy for 10 years after he retires, and the beauty of it is that by that time all the old geezers on the widebodies will have retired as well.

Air Canada is benefiting greatly from the routes to South America, China, Japan, and the South Pacific brought to it from the CP route structure, but even if it didn't we are employees of a publicly traded company with twin histories from the public sector and the private sector of Canadian aviation. We fly the aircraft; we don't run the company. When Air Canada's marketing team does a good job with the phenomenal route authority that they have access to, it should benefit all employees throughout their careers, no matter which side of the merger those careers began.

[Guest directlaw]

In directlaw's case, if he was a junior A320 F/O on Oct 17, 2000 in YVR, he was hired in 1998. His CDN counterpart was likely hired in 1988. I realize that there are individual variations and that there is always someone who is dealt a bad hand by demographics, but on average it stands to reason that the CDN guys are about 10 years older than their OAC counterparts in the right seat.

No, that is not when I was hired. But I can see where your going and it really wouldn't matter to you when I was hired does it?

Apparently your idea of equity has nothing to do with D183 does it?

Now that explains why we can't agree doesn't it. I'm talking Board Orders and you are talking what you "wish" the board orders were.

Can you justify the present list based on D183 or not. You have claimed you can on a "career path time line" basis.

Lets see it.

[Guest Kilo Mike]

The pay issue is a red herring ....etc etc - Starman

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I only wanted to highlite that the DC-10 / RP stuff is also redundant. As you say, we're all professional pilots doing a job so why bring up the 'ours are bigger' argument. I mean AC had a larger widebody fleet when compared to Cdn.

Also not sure why you are bringing up the retirement / age stuff as that was tosseed by every arbitrator , including Keller. Retirements were specifically mentioned as not being an equity that has any bearing on the list construction. You're kind of kicking a dead horse here.

'When Air Canada's marketing team does a good job with the phenomenal route authority that they have access to, it should benefit all employees throughout their careers, no matter which side of the merger those careers began. ' - Starman

I agree. Once ACE had shrunk to remove the vast duplication of domestic routings and some overseas that were in existance, the resulting route structure is showing promise such that every remaining employee can benefit.

While this is a nice re-hash. It doesn't address the fact that the Mitchnik correction factors are no longer required. The Keller groupings of aircraft still remain along with the initial pre-correction ratios, which for all intents and purposes is the list we theoretically would have been operating under had we not had Mitchnik.

[Dork]

"but on average it stands to reason that the CDN guys are about 10 years older than their OAC counterparts in the right seat of the A320, and that means that on average the OAC guy will benefit from the flying left behind by the OCP guy for 10 years after he retires, and the beauty of it is that by that time all the old geezers on the widebodies will have retired as well"

1. The CDN guys at that level of seniority are the same age;

2. OAC counterpart has basicaly been entailed with at least 300-350 CDN (Former CRA Types) counterparts blocking the left seat and widebody for his entire career;

3. 2850 not 3450 positions exist now therefoe Directlaw never gets his money or his % seniority back over his career;

4. We can all argue around in circles for another 6 years....heck why not 18 or 20...Directlaw will have retired by then....right about the same time as his richer and more senior CDN counterpart does.

We are here because of Labour Unrest...as per the filings of Air Canada of record. Without and adequate solution leaving everyone ticked off...we have no hope.

JMHO.

Bunkertime.

[Kip Powick]

We are here because of Labour Unrest

add to your sentence " and greed"

[Dork]

Kip you are very correct on that point.

[Guest Starman]

Isn't everyone already ticked off?