Latest News in AOPG vs ACPG

[John S.]

Hi Ramjet

I was just passing along what I heard.

The whole merger issue was, has become, and is still, so complicated and full of inconsistencies, errors of facts and outright emotional mystification that we outsiders are often tempted to just sit back and watch you have at it.

Along that line I probably should have not posted the ‘rumor’ as I will not post names.

Best to just wait and if it is true (or not) you’ll know soon enough.

John

PS Why have you decided to not use your name?

[Hadji Ramjet]

Best to just wait and if it is true (or not) you’ll know soon enough.

Really? So if this CAIL cabal has an average age of say, 57, I'll know in three years? Does that fit your definition of "soon enough?"

PS Why have you decided to not use your name?

I'm from South-West Asia, Hadji is a pretty common name there. Is your last name really S period?

[John S.]

Really? So if this CAIL cabal has an average age of say, 57, I'll know in three years? Does that fit your definition of "soon enough?"

Sure, that's okay with me.

I'm from South-West Asia, Hadji is a pretty common name there. Is your last name really S period?

My first name really is John. (You say that Hadji is common where you're from, but not if it is your name.) My last name really does begin with the letter "S" comma end of statement period

[Homerun]

Upperdeck, it's not a fact. The AC pilots could have accepted Picher with open arms, but AC was not bound to accept it, and the evidence suggests they wouldn't have. ACPA could have tried to negotiate it's implementaion, but that was no sure thing and we all know how succesful ACPA is in negotiations. Therefore, it is merely a hypothetical theory that leads to a claim of damages. If that theory is accepted by the court, then the case rides on the tort claim which is dependant on the claim of implied contracts between union members, a claim which has been previously rejected/thrown out/disallowed. There's a long way to go before damages are paid. imo

[Homerun]

John S., your pension benefit is determined on the contributions you have made. That is why there will be different pension benefits between retiring OCP and OAC. Pilots on the original OCP pension plan have certain benefits that OAC don't have, such as best 36 months versus best 60 for the benefit calculation.

There still remains differences in other areas that favour the OCP as well, such as vacation calculation and pass travel.

You're obviously biased and trying to show that somehow the OCP are hard done by at the hands of the OAC, but the facts don't support this.

[UpperDeck]

Upperdeck, it's not a fact. The AC pilots could have accepted Picher with open arms, but AC was not bound to accept it, and the evidence suggests they wouldn't have. ACPA could have tried to negotiate it's implementaion, but that was no sure thing and we all know how succesful ACPA is in negotiations. Therefore, it is merely a hypothetical theory that leads to a claim of damages. If that theory is accepted by the court, then the case rides on the tort claim which is dependant on the claim of implied contracts between union members, a claim which has been previously rejected/thrown out/disallowed. There's a long way to go before damages are paid. imo

Homerun.....

I said that it was a fact that AO pilots sustained damages. Don't extrapolate from that assertion to conclude that I believe it to be certain that AO will win the lawsuit. Only a fool would assert the certainty of success----and only a fool would deny the possibility.

And that's the point.

You are correct that AC could have rejected all efforts by AC pilots to negotiate acceptance of the Picher list. We'll never know because not only were those efforts not exercised; acceptance was aggressively opposed by a very vocal portion of the AC pilot group. What we do know is that the AC pilot group were obligated to take all steps required to obtain acceptance up to and including labour action. We also know that when the Regionals themselves took labour action, the company was prepared to concede to Common Employer. It's certainly not much of a "push" to conclude that if the Picher award had been advocated by the AC pilots, it would have been accepted by the company.

However, our discussion on the subject won't advance anyone's cause. Unless otherwise resolved, the case will proceed to court and the chips will fall where they may regardless of what you and I may think appropriate.

I believe that the point Defcon was making initially was that ACPA has thrown everyone in the same cauldron regardless of the extent of their involvement (if any) in the efforts to frustrate Picher. All AC pilots appear to be paying the costs that are being "thrown away" because of very questionable legal tactics even though a significant number aren't even defendants. And---just exactly who is orchestrating the defence? Do the majority have the same financial exposure or are the "many" paying and unwittingly taking the risk for the "few"?

Those are the issues raised and I don't think you've ventured down that darkened alley.

[Kip Powick]

You're obviously biased and trying to show that somehow the OCP are hard done by at the hands of the OAC, but the facts don't support this.

Homerun.

John S., whom I know, is not, and has never been CP and has, as far as I am concerned, never shown a bias one way or the other,with respect to CP pilots and the merge with AC.

John can defend his own postings but I would give him latitude to post what he has "heard" because we all know many rumours and untruths abound within the confines of this, and other forums.

You will have to admit that tone, syntax and grammar sometimes set the scene for some to hear/read something other than what was posted, and in this case I think you may have been a victim of same when reading John's post.

PS....Yes, we in CP have a different pension plan and at last glance it was better funded as far as % goes with respect to OAC pension fund..

As far as the OCP pilots having been hard done by at the hands of OAC.....well that discussion would be totally fruitless because there will never be an end to acrimony...guilty..from both sides.

And finally.............do you think it is fair for the OCP pilots and perhaps the newbies to be paying legal fees etc., for things " they" had absolutely no part in and were not even on the property during these so called "events???

Me??? I don't think it is fair and don't tell me it is the price of belonging to ACPA cause ...in my opinion......AC pilots should be looking for a new union..preferably a well established and viable union that has $$$ and a LARGE voice....but please remember this is just my opinion from out here in Dotland...and yes I know I'm not a player anymore ......just a "watcher"

[Homerun]

Hi Kip. Can't disagree with most of what you say. I do disagree with the fair part at the end though. That's what being part of a union is about. An issue may not affect you but you support it anyways. The next issue may be yours.

When all the pilots merged under ACPA, the OCP inherited a strike/contingency fund, worth about $3 million at the time, that was funded by the OAC. There was a lot of discussion as to whether this was fair, should it be returned to the OAC then replenished by the combined group, should the OCP contribute an equivalent amount, etc, etc. The decision was taken to leave it in place, as we were all one now, part of a union, etc, etc. Given your statement of fairness, do you think this decision was unfair to the OAC?

[John S.]

. . . . John can defend his own postings but I would give him latitude to post what he has "heard" because we all know many rumours and untruths abound within the confines of this, and other forums. . . . . .

Good point Kip. It is not possible to defend some of the things we hear unless we are willing post who said what to whom when and where.

On a forum where most have chosen to remain anonymous it is clearly not appropriate to post who said what to whom.

Besides, on this merger topic I have noticed that there are individuals who can support debate on BOTH sides in EVERY argument.

A red guy lost seniority? Here's the blue guy who lost more.

A blue guy lost left seat? Here's the red guy who lost left seat AND base.

A red guy lost vacation? Here's the blue guy who lost vacation AND the boat.

A blue guy lost pension? Here's the red guy who lost more.

By the way, I'm so out of the loop that I thought that the mainline new hires were NOT paying to fund the AC Pilots legal defense team. Reading above it appears that they still are.

[Hadji Ramjet]

My first name really is John... My last name really does begin with the letter "S" comma end of statement period

Hypocrisy in action: You demand someone post their name while simultaneously declining to do the same.

I thought that the mainline new hires were NOT paying to fund the AC Pilots legal defense team

New hires were even privileged enough to contribute to paying for ACPA's extra-legal seniority efforts. No doubt they will be expected to help fund any penalties that may result from the AO lawsuit.

[Kip Powick]

Given your statement of fairness, do you think this decision was unfair to the OAC?

That is an odd situation but I don't think it can be lumped into ones Union fees having to go for a legal issue that was in play prior to coming on the property.

What you basically had was a "war chest" in the event of a strike. In that case perhaps OAC and OCP could have negotiated the percentage each OAC/OCP pilot would get for strike pay based on the time/$$ of contributions...I would assume that OCP must have brought some funds into the Union??? dunno...I've never had much to do with where the money goes in a "Union".

IE: if this AOPG thing goes in favour of the litigants would ALL ACPA members have to pay for the errors of things that happened pre property? As you know the AOPG has named specific individuals in the law suit and that then begs the question ..again...if the defendants have to pay damages, does ACPA, as a Union, spread the pain out cause they want to "stand by their men" or do they say..."you named individuals are on your own"????

Based on my short time with ACPA I would say that the Union needs to look closely at their own operations and think about the future and the leverage they need. It is time to forget the CALPA ACpilot debacle, realize that singing the "we are a grass roots organization" theme song is passe, and admit the present Union is pretty badly flawed...one only has to read the "other" forums to see the supreme lack of interest in the coming elections...oh sure a couple of threads with questions but you and I know that the people posing the questions are always on the forum and are very few. There should be at least 75% of the membership digging into the candidates brains...instead of less than 25 people.

Just me again but in all honesty...can you not see a brighter side to the AC pilot Union if it joined forces with a MEGA Union??

Sorry about the question you posed.. drift.......just would like to see some positive action for a change. With respect to fairness and your question...I don't have a definitive answer

[John S.]

Hypocrisy in action: You demand someone post their name while simultaneously declining to do the same.

Geez, you really got me there. I don't like being called a hypocrite. So, here's an offer for you. I'll post my real name if you post yours.

I'll even go first, and since you seem to be a bit shy we can even do this in small steps - one name at a time.

My first name is John.

What is your first name?

[Hadji Ramjet]

Hadji is actually a title, not a name, you have to earn it.

Maybe you should just stick to the content.

[John S.]

Hadji is actually a title, not a name, you have to earn it.

Yes,H.J., I can do a Wiki search as well as you. So you searched and found that Hadji (sometimes spelled Hajji) is "an honorific title given to a Muslim person who has successfully completed the Hajj to Mecca, and is often used to refer to an elder, since it takes time to accumulate the wealth to fund the travel." Fine. That means you know how to google and/or you may/may not have been on a Hajj. Or you are just using it as one might use Mr. or Capt.

Hmmmm. Perhaps you call several of your co-workers not by their first name but "Captain" as that is also a somewhat honorific title bestowed on individuals that have achieved a level of success in their career. (I say 'somewhat honorific' to give due credence to the seniority thing.)

Maybe you should just stick to the content.

Is it not all content? Or do you mean only the content that you like to discuss?

PS. Why is it you are so not willing to post even your first name?

[DEFCON]

Hadji

"New hires were even privileged enough to contribute to paying for ACPA's extra-legal seniority efforts. No doubt they will be expected to help fund any penalties that may result from the AO lawsuit."

I doubt you or 'anyone' else not directly involved in the suit would be jumping up to 'pay the Piper' for the sins of others should the AOPG group ultimately prevail? I think, paying the cost of the defence would be considered more than enough of a contribution to the 'cause' by most?

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON;

I doubt you or 'anyone' else not directly involved in the suit would be jumping up to 'pay the Piper' for the sins of others should the AOPG group ultimately prevail? I think, paying the cost of the defence would be considered more than enough of a contribution to the 'cause' by most?

While not directly related to the present matter, the "Rand Forumula" resolved similar questions of individual benefit vs. collective support for all matters under the unions' umbrella.

In other words, the question, should it ever arise, would not be considered "settled" in all quarters.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Is it not all content? Or do you mean only the content that you like to discuss?

Content would be that which relates to the thread topic, that being the issue between AOPG and ACPA. Content would be how the issue relates to those who are or may be affected. Content would be intelligent commentary on the subject.

What content is not is a pratt hijacking the thread with incessant bleatings about names.

[John S.]

While not directly related to the present matter, the "Rand Forumula" resolved similar questions of individual benefit vs. collective support for all matters under the unions' umbrella. . . . .

It would be interesting to see if the "Rand Formula" legislation applies should this lawsuit ever come to conclusion. If it does, plan on to see some religious converts and some happy local charities.

As to the topic: It is my understanding that the action is between two groups of pilots, one being employed by the former Air Ontario and the other being a group that worked at Air Canada and signed certain documents that brought them together as a group.

Is it true that not 100% of the former Air Ontario pilots NOR 100% of the former Air Canada pilots are involved? At least not directly named.

The former Air Ontario grouping has never, to my knowledge, called this a union action or asked for or wanted any Association involvement.

On the other hand, the former Air Canada grouping has, to my understanding, several elements including a number of members who see this primarily as an Association matter. I was also informed that some (now retired) Air Canada pilots did not desire to join the initial lawsuit grouping as the division of damages in the (very, very unlikely) event of damages being awarded would be unfairly harsh on those with the most assets. I wonder what happened to this (these?) 'splinter groups'?

Again, this is just observations from the sidelines where I recognize "incessant bleating" names on both sides.

[Don Hudson]

John;

Re religious converts... , yes I think so!

Re not 100%, etc ...true. I am one of the "sinners" named in the lawsuit although I still can't figure out what I did individually. I flew the DC8 as an oiler and then the DC9 where I was scheduled to fly. There was certainly no ability to say I wasn't going to fly where the company which hired me scheduled me for. I belong to one of the six or seven "groups" in the lawsuit - the group that was a member of CALPA but "did nothing" in terms of advocating/not-advocating in the merger/scope matter. If I recall, it was a small group of AO pilots who launched this suit, some of whom are now at AC. I understand that even ALPA disagreed with the suit and would not support the group but that goes back a dozen years or more and I can't recall how it all unfolded. I do recall losing seniority when Picher was published though, but as I say, wasn't ever active in the "merger-scope" issues.

I don't know what happened to those who didn't join any of the groups. Many chose to because this is a legal matter as well as an Association matter and having standing within the legal boundaries is (in my opinion) better than being independent. The matter has a life and a legal standing of its own and must take its course within the legal system, vagaries, unpredictable consequences and surprises acknowledged. I have had my own thoughts on this but they are immaterial to the matter.

[UpperDeck]

It would be interesting to see if the "Rand Formula" legislation applies should this lawsuit ever come to conclusion. If it does, plan on to see some religious converts and some happy local charities.

As to the topic: It is my understanding that the action is between two groups of pilots, one being employed by the former Air Ontario and the other being a group that worked at Air Canada and signed certain documents that brought them together as a group.

Is it true that not 100% of the former Air Ontario pilots NOR 100% of the former Air Canada pilots are involved? At least not directly named.

The former Air Ontario grouping has never, to my knowledge, called this a union action or asked for or wanted any Association involvement.

On the other hand, the former Air Canada grouping has, to my understanding, several elements including a number of members who see this primarily as an Association matter. I was also informed that some (now retired) Air Canada pilots did not desire to join the initial lawsuit grouping as the division of damages in the (very, very unlikely) event of damages being awarded would be unfairly harsh on those with the most assets. I wonder what happened to this (these?) 'splinter groups'?

Again, this is just observations from the sidelines where I recognize "incessant bleating" names on both sides.

John S.

I think you are accurate in your statement that the Air Ontario lawsuit is not ostensibly a "union action". However, as with so many things these days, there always seems to be something barely peeking out from under the rug.

To clarify one procedural point. There are indeed persons who are individually named both as plaintiffs and as defendants. They are "representatives". In the case of the defendants, there are persons named to represent the AC MEC of CALPA and others named to represent other groups of AC pilots. The largest groups consist of pilots who were NOT involved with the union in any capacity!! The following is extracted from an October decision of Master Haberman wherein she described the various defendant sub-classes;

"...James Griffith and Kevin Vaillancourt representing AC pilots who did not

hold positions on the AC MEC, LEC, Negotiating Committee of AC

pilots, the Special MEC Merger Committee or as a Merger

Representative who nonetheless acted to prevent implementation of the

Picher award; and

Gordon Greig, representing those AC pilots not mentioned above who

took no steps to encourage the implementation of the Picher award."

It is important to understand that it is not only the named representatives who may be liable to pay any damages awarded; it is ALL pilots whom that particular representative is named to represent. For example, if you are an AC pilot who wrote letters to the company evidencing your opposition to implementation of the Picher award and if at a trial, it is determined that was actionable conduct giving rise to liability, then you and all other pilots in the same situation are obligated to pay any damages awarded even if you are not specifically named as a defendant.

On the Plaintiff side, all Air Ontario pilots are represented by the five named plaintiffs except for those few who "opted out" of the lawsuit. All of those remaining are, through the named representatives, asserting an entitlement to compensation.

Back to the "union" issue. Obviously, ACPA decided to pay for all legal costs incurred in responding to the lawsuit. I'm guessing that ACPA, like all unions, has acquired a life that is independent of those who nominally "run the show". ACPA no doubt sees ALPA as a "rival". That conflict may be relevant to the resolution of the lawsuit.

As I posted earlier, I was told (rumour alert!!) that ALPA proposed a meeting of all parties to the lawsuit to canvass ways to resolve or limit the issues. The Air Ontario side agreed to participate. ACPA responded with an unequivocal "no".

That gives rise to the question; "why" ? Is it possible that "union issues" are inhibiting the possible resolution of a lawsuit that would bankrupt so many of the AC contingent if (emphasize "if") the plaintiffs are successful at trial?

[UpperDeck]

John;

Re religious converts... , yes I think so!

Re not 100%, etc ...true. I am one of the "sinners" named in the lawsuit although I still can't figure out what I did. I belong to one of the six or seven "groups" in the lawsuit - the group that was a member of CALPA but "did nothing" in terms of advocating/not-advocating in the merger/scope matter. If I recall, it was a small group of AO pilots who launched this suit, some of whom are now at AC. I understand that even ALPA disagreed with the suit and would not support the group but that goes back a dozen years or more and I can't recall how it all unfolded. I do recall losing seniority when Picher was published though, but as I say, wasn't ever active in the "merger-scope" issues.

I don't know what happened to those who didn't join any of the groups. Many chose to because this is a legal matter as well as an Association matter and having standing within the legal boundaries is (in my opinion) better than being independent. The matter has a life and a legal standing of its own and must take its course within the legal system, vagaries, unpredictable consequences and surprises acknowledged. I have had my own thoughts on this but they are immaterial to the matter.

Don.....

I would be very surprised to learn that Picher, if implemented, would have had any impact whatsoever upon your seniority. The following is extracted from the decision of Master Haberman rendered in October, 2008;

"The Air Ontao pilot groups initially sought full dovetaìling of all seniority lists, such

that each pilot regardless of his employer, would slot in based on his years of service,subject to some modification. By the time they reached arbitration, however, they had an alternate proposal, still based on dovetailng but only from a certain point (AC Pilot O'Hara and below). They proposed full integration but only of the bottom 15% of the Air Canada list with the seniority list of the connectors. This would leave 85% of the Air Canada pilots completely unaffected by the results of the arbitration.

In absolute numbers, the 15% translated to 249 AC pilots and of that group whose

seniority would be shifted, 243 of them were on lay-off from Air Canada at the time of these events. The connector groups' proposal therefore included a time frame for the implementation of merger to ensure that those on lay-off would not be prejudiced when they bid on work as part of their return to the work force.

The connector pilots also pointed out that though this arbitration was derived from a 1991 Declaration of Merger, the possibility of merger had been on the table since 1986, so no Air Canada pilot could say he was prejudiced by taking up employment, unaware of the potential for this outcome. Further, the pilots on lay-off who would be returning to Air Canada (243 of the 249 affected) would be flying equipment comparable to that operated by the connector pilots and at comparable rates.

In the end, Picher was of the view that what the connectors, including the Air Ontario

pilots proposed was fair and equitable and accordingly, it formed the centrepiece of

his March 1995 award."

However---I wonder why you think this award might have affected you since quite clearly Mr. Picher was at pains to explain to the vast majority of AC pilots that not only would their seniority and bidding rights be unaffected; all pilots would benefit by the elimination of the "whipsaw tool" used by the company to the detriment of both employee groups.

[Don Hudson]

Upperdeck;

I'm in "memory lane" here and would have to dig up the list from my archives. However, I didn't think the award would affect me, I knew it, at least from the seniority list I got after the award, which showed me losing 23 numbers. In 1995 I had almost 22 years of service and when I joined AC neither Air Ontario nor any of the other regionals even existed and didn't for some time after and I couldnt' understand how some could have more years of service. That's what bothered me so much at the time, and I wonder now, if this whole thing was misperceived?

It was a very long time ago and I have to say that retirement has further dimmed memory of the issues.

[RussD]

I knew it, at least from the seniority list I got after the award, which showed me losing 23 numbers. In 1995 I had almost 22 years of service. That's what bothered me so much at the time, and I wonder now, if this whole thing was misperceived?

Misperceived is an interesting word. You as well as the rest of your colleagues were, quite bluntly lied to. Lies, misrepresentations and out right bull $hit were the preferred mode of operation for the drivers of the 'Kill Picher' movement.

Surprisingly after all of this time and resultant destruction of the profession that ensued, some poor slobs still believe that slop.

Whatever gets a guy thru the day I guess

[UpperDeck]

Upperdeck;

I'm in "memory lane" here and would have to dig up the list from my archives. However, I didn't think the award would affect me, I knew it, at least from the seniority list I got after the award, which showed me losing 23 numbers. In 1995 I had almost 22 years of service and when I joined AC neither Air Ontario nor any of the other regionals even existed and didn't for some time after and I couldnt' understand how some could have more years of service. That's what bothered me so much at the time, and I wonder now, if this whole thing was misperceived?

It was a very long time ago and I have to say that retirement has further dimmed memory of the issues.

Don.....

I hope you understand that I am unaffected by any of this; I have an "intellectual interest" but want to make clear that I am not within the Plaintiff class.

As is evidenced by the post of RussD, there continues to be a lot of resentment because of what was seen as manipulation by the AC MEC (and various LECs) to use a union process to extract concessions from the employer that directly impacted upon the Regional pilots.

Leaving that aside, I can assure you that you were misled if you were told that you would lose even one number of seniority. I don't know by whom or why but you were definitely misled.

I first read the main Picher award with interest because he anticipated some negative reaction and expended the effort to explain why he believed the award would be to the benefit of all pilots. He was at pains to re-assure the senior AC pilots I believe with the hope that they would be the voice of reason in the heated discussions that in fact ensued. I continue to believe that if the majority had assumed their rightful role as "elder statesmen", then the Air Canada world would be a different place today.

[Slim]

I first read the main Picher award with interest because he anticipated some negative reaction and expended the effort to explain why he believed the award would be to the benefit of all pilots. He was at pains to re-assure the senior AC pilots I believe with the hope that they would be the voice of reason in the heated discussions that in fact ensued. I continue to believe that if the majority had assumed their rightful role as "elder statesmen", then the Air Canada world would be a different place today.

Then came the 243 Wing... can't remember who the Wing Commander was at the time but the propoganda machine was pushed to mach buffet. Too bad more people didn't take the time to read that "award" at the time. BTW I never liked that word anyway.. prefered "decision" myself

We will never know for sure but maybe a better understanding of the "facts" may have produced a different outcome. Life goes on.