Mitch Cronin Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I just wanna say:.... ...Kip.... I understand why some people are upset with you for posting that... and I think you could have seen that coming, if you'd given it some thought... (but I still love ya ) I can see why folks think there was some gloating from you in it. Everyone knows full well what your "side" is. True enough, you were just "the messenger", but you gave yourself the job, and all sorts of folks are thinking about what your motivation was, and what response you thought you'd get... thus far, I don't think you've answered that question, so naturally, people will take what they can and formulate their own hypotheses. I'd wager that you agreed with the ruling and that was at least a part of your own reasons for your post. ...now that gets into why people are mad at you; they'd make the same wager and they vehemently disagree! ....most folks I know in that sort of a situation don't even wanna think about some dink kicking sand in their faces! I believe you reminded 'em of that guy. Cheers from snowy Claremont! Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Someone remind me the date the last pilot affected by this retires? That is when it will be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Big GLUE sale at Walmart was there? Talk to some of the guys who were at the regionals then that are still there how much better the relationship was. Floatrrr, I take your comments to heart. I truly believe that the relationship was better on the Blue side. However, I do know that there were Pilots that (sadly) fell through the cracks during the Flow- Through. Having been involved, at a variety of levels, I've witnesses this play out from both the A/C and CAIL side. I stand-by my comment that the "Quebec Accord" flow-through was well done. As I'm sure you know there were a number of guys that flowed-through, and then subsequently quit after the Merger with A/C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 and what response you thought you'd get... thus far, I don't think you've answered that question Mitch. A repost from a-w-a-y up the thread..........incase you missed it. Yes, Don I expected more than the venomous postings from some of the younger crowd. I expected that if there were remarks, that there would be no gloating or outward hatred, but I was wrong. I expected those were affected to say"well we gave it our best shot..let's move on" but I was wrong. I expected those that must be filled with loathing to get over it and realize one can only do so much...but I was wrong. So sad when a piece of information is posted ,with absolutely no inferrence one way or the other, that those that feel they have been adversely effected have to resort to slinging mud...doesn't bode well for the future of some of these people. That is just the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Someone remind me the date the last pilot affected by this retires? That is when it will be over. It is an attitude that is inbred, and will never change. Kinda' like, when will there be peace in the middle east? Does God have any miracles left to give up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Floatrrr, I take your comments to heart. I truly believe that the relationship was better on the Blue side. However, I do know that there were Pilots that (sadly) fell through the cracks during the Flow- Through. Having been involved, at a variety of levels, I've witnesses this play out from both the A/C and CAIL side. I stand-by my comment that the "Quebec Accord" flow-through was well done. As I'm sure you know there were a number of guys that flowed-through, and then subsequently quit after the Merger with A/C. Right, the "Quebec Accord". So you stand by a flowthrough that did not include all pilots on the seniority list equally? Pre97-Post97. Well... this helps me understand your position better anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Floatrrr - the MEC of the day (at CRA) had to present the final deal to the membership when they had achieved all they could (and time ran out). The MEC Chairman back then, when asked at a roadshow about the limited nature of the agreement (which included all members of the current bargaining unit at that time) said something to the effect that "this agreement opens a door that didn't even exist before now. Its up to you in the next round of bargaining to kick it open the rest of the way." Whether that could have been achieved or not if the companies were here today is debatable - but the nature of collective bargaining with two pilot groups and a hostile employer means sometimes you just can't get it all first pass. I think it was a pretty good deal, warts and all. There's more than a few others that would share that view, IMHO. buzz edit - spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Interesting thread. Kip posts an item that is non-judgemental and already in the public domain yet the book-burners are out immediately calling for censorship. Actually quite frightening. Especially if you have spent time in a country where democracy is not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMA Luc Savoie Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 ....your comment about vitriolic exchanges, with respect to my dialogue, be best directed at some of your OAC peers on this forum... You see Kip, your comment is exactly what I'm referring to, and it is one's inability - in this case, yours - to accept responsibility for continuing, stoking and spreading that disease called "merger". Hence the question: why do it? You know that my OAC peers - as you refer to them, will go for the vitriol. Does it make you happy to turn this forum into a battleground? I do not dispute the data: it is factual. I question the motive and I believe that this forum, as the old ACPA forum did, will continue to endure the consequences of this sterile debate because folks - like you this time - keep playing the innocent enabler. Quite sad and unwise, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 in this case, yours - to accept responsibility for continuing, stoking and spreading that disease called "merger" And I did this with my initial posting...is that correct?? Try reading the thread again and see who cast the first stone....and then look who turned this thread into a "battleground". Motive?? What motive.?.other than posting information.... You and your ilk just can't seem to get a grip on reality and feel that you might as well hound the original poster of the SCC decison because you have no other person to deride. Go ahead guys rant/vent but please get over it because all you are doing is embarassing yourself. Small minds, juvenile antics...time for some of these spiteful individuals to grow up, and show a little maturity. If I was in your shoes I would be terribly embarassed in your, and their attempt to deflect the SCC decision, in the posted factoid, toward me as a sinister plot to rekindle the flames of an issue that is dead...dead...dead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Don't you all know, Kip's never been wrong a day in his life. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Floatrrr - the MEC of the day (at CRA) had to present the final deal to the membership when they had achieved all they could (and time ran out). The MEC Chairman back then, when asked at a roadshow about the limited nature of the agreement (which included all members of the current bargaining unit at that time) said something to the effect that "this agreement opens a door that didn't even exist before now. Its up to you in the next round of bargaining to kick it open the rest of the way." Whether that could have been achieved or not if the companies were here today is debatable - but the nature of collective bargaining with two pilot groups and a hostile employer means sometimes you just can't get it all first pass. I think it was a pretty good deal, warts and all. There's more than a few others that would share that view, IMHO. buzz edit - spelling Yep, and now I understand your position better as well. Sure it was a good deal for the ones that negotiated it, but as usual, the junior ones and the ones not yet on the seniority list get the shaft, that's OK , nature of the business. Whatever makes ya sleep at night there Buzz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I've noticed since I've been posting here that you're a little bent out of shape over what sounds like (your POV of course) a raw deal for you at the connector vis a vis mainline stuff. Maybe you could tell us (or just me) what your history is and how it has shaped your opinions. The deal at CRA involved all the pilots at the CRA bargaining unit at the time of signing - the line in the sand wasn't going to move as the CRA pilots had held out one month past the last deadline and management wasn't giving another inch. 100% hiring from CRA was always the bargaining position right up to final final offer. What would you have done when your mandate is to the members that elected you??? BTW - I sleep fine, thanks. b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I've noticed since I've been posting here that you're a little bent out of shape over what sounds like (your POV of course) a raw deal for you at the connector vis a vis mainline stuff. Maybe you could tell us (or just me) what your history is and how it has shaped your opinions. The deal at CRA involved all the pilots at the CRA bargaining unit at the time of signing - the line in the sand wasn't going to move as the CRA pilots had held out one month past the last deadline and management wasn't giving another inch. 100% hiring from CRA was always the bargaining position right up to final final offer. What would you have done when your mandate is to the members that elected you??? BTW - I sleep fine, thanks. b "The deal at CRA involved all the pilots at the CRA bargaining unit at the time of signing". If you say it , and write it enough times, you will actually believe it yourself. I suspect , that is how you are able to sleep fine at night. You may have been able to dazzle most of the newbies with your lines, but sooner or later someone will always call you on your BS. Hope the merger gave you everything you deserve. Sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 And here I thought dealing with 10 year olds was tough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 And here I thought dealing with 10 year olds was tough They hiring rampies that young nowadays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 If you say it , and write it enough times, you will actually believe it yourself. You may have been able to dazzle most of the newbies with your lines, but sooner or later someone will always call you on your BS. Man, your rebuttal is pathetic... I was there and heavily involved at the time - where do you get off saying it wasn't so? What's your stake in all this anyhow - an embittered ex Red Connector who missed the LOU 18 train? I'm guessing you weren't at CRA 11 years ago. Or perhaps back then you were still running around your parents yard with gummybears in your pocket and a model airplane in your hand? Ahhh, the good old days... Whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 They hiring rampies that young nowadays? It's just getting to seem that way Fresh meat daily as they run them through 2 weeks of training to try to cover the Christmas rush. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Floatrrr: The CRA Flow-Through does not affect my sleep, but, thanks for the concern. It's hard to know what your gripe is, other than not understanding the details. The Flow-through was not a merger of lists, it allowed those that were interested at CRA to get hired at Canadi>n. The intake of Pilots was finite and ended with the merger with Air Canada. It was further complicated by the fact that Canadi>n Flight Ops insisted on a percentage of hiring off the street. The reality that not all the CRA Pilots made it across, is not the fault of the agreement. Considering the massive hiring at Air Canada, for those that were / are interested, and have been unsuccessful, they should take a look in the mirror. Luc: The present ACPA Forum has recently had far more personal, heated debate than exists on this Forum. Considering that Forum is run-by, moderated-by, controlled-by the OAC, it is always a one way exchange. An ex-Canadi>n Pilot has the nerve to run for the YYZ LEC and he got eaten alive on the ACPA Forum. They dug-up and posted his personal letters to the CIRB, pretty low. Although, it's all O/K if it suits the OAC agenda. Would that be allowed to happen in reverse, not likely! If this decision had gone the other way, there would be Billboards on the 401 and every forum on the Internet would be lit -up like a Christmas Tree. The fact that it was posted here is due to the fact that ACPA will NEVER post it. They control and spoon feed information, to suit their own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Johnny, I understand all the details well. However, I don't really care as it doesn't affect me anymore. It does however ,bother me when I hear all the pi$$ing and moaning that goes on ,RE: the merger with CAIL/ACPA, when folks like you are really no different than the ones you whine about, if you were in the position you would do the same thing. You have in the past,(CRA) and the so called agreement that excluded brothers and sisters on your seniority list proves the point. Weather they were on line or not it is of no consequence, it created a division on the list. Good work. So Johnny, you and Buzz sleep well, I hope you enjoy the bed you lie in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Floatrrr....I must be missing something. I have no clue wtf you're talking about. There was never a merger between CRA and CAIL? I sleep in a very comfortable bed, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMA Luc Savoie Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Kip Please bear with me as I’ll try an analogy. A few years ago, the journal La Presse from Montréal, reported about a young man committing suicide by jumping from the top of Jacques-Cartier Bridge. They made it their first page top news, along with a spectacular half page color picture. The information was factual, but it was in very poor taste – after all, a man had died – and the editorial board of the newspaper later apologized to the family of the deceased. Anyway, I am not fishing for excuses. I simply hope you can see the parallel insofar as like the newspaper, your haste in getting the news out made it like front page news. As Don Hudson said, there are regular channels for that type of news: why not wait a few days, until it’s not hot of the press anymore, and until it’s been digested by those your group finally defeated? That's the choice I was talking about. As the topic starter, I cannot believe you to be proud of how this thread has slipped into the usual nastiness. Yes, I know, you keep claiming that you are not responsible, and in a technical sense, you are right. I ask you this, then: do you think that this forum is a better place since you started this topic? One last point: wrong target, as I am not one who keeps squawking negatively about Keller. I, like many others, think it was a terrible, one-sided arbitration, but wish we could all finally turn the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Johnny, you are not missing anything, you just choose to overlook and ignore it. I agree with Floatrr, you are exactly the same as the people you whine about. No better...no worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrrr Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Floatrrr....I must be missing something. I have no clue wtf you're talking about. There was never a merger between CRA and CAIL? I sleep in a very comfortable bed, thanks. I know you can read, so whatever you have to do to twist things in your mind so you can live with it , go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 O/K boys, you two can twist it with innuendo. Neither one of you seem to have a grasp of the facts. Just your imaginary version of what shudd'a, cudd'a happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.