DEFCON Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 ChicoChico Nozel's statement: "I believe a "no layoff" clause in the calpa contract exsisted then so those 242 were paid all the while not flying?" Your rebutal: "Completely and utterly FALSE! Those pilots were laid off as in: no pay ZERO, no benfits ZERO, no JOB comprende?" My rebutal to you: The 243 were carried for a long long time before a "deal" was struck with HH which amongst other things, resulted in their layoffs. Prior to the "deal" the no layoff clause that Nozel refers to kept them employed. Your position: "You are referring to "wet-lease" credits which did not apply to this situation." My Question: What was the basis of these "wet lease credits"? You say: "You may also be mixing up the fact that AC CALPA had a no-layoff clause in our contract which was ruled "not-applicable" to the factors that resulted in the 243 being layed off." "not applicable" as in a secret deal had been reached and the 243 were declared redundant as a condition of the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Operation Bomberclad Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 These Specualtions Based On Worst Case Scenario Of The Imminent Bankruptcy Of The Mothercorp Lets get off this boring discourse about how Jazz is not low cost by comparing WJ wages and Jazz wages. They are very much the same ballpark, so why quibble about nickels and dimes? The mainline money losers are where the problem is, and has always been. Lets get into the real meat of where the massive losses are: I don't suppose that The Pilots With Their Hands On The Lever Of Economic Power will be so anxious to write for themselves the epitaph of the mothercorp, they are simply too busy foaming at the mouth every time someone in Canada tries to fly an airplane. I await the truly Forbesian interpretation of why there is a massive crater in the ground where the once proud Pilots With Their Hands On the House Of Commons Mace dictated for a short time airline policy in this fair land. But Stalinists are die-hards, I hear and would rather that everyone else starved as long as they cling to the power-lever. I would not be surprised if the self-styled dictators of the airline industry started calling Jazz employees "splittists" and "subversionaries" in the manner of the Republic of China when referring to dissident democrats. Even though the mainline has now "successfully" competed with its own subsidiaries by parking its jets and making redundant the lowest cost workers in its own network, the emphasis remains on the egotistitcal belief that "low cost" mainline pilots benefit society almost exclusively. But the mothercorp cannot seem to compete with its smaller rivals for some reason. They started at 85% and now reside at what? -*number too horrifying to relate*- Sorry, that was unfair. I should say the mothercorp is shooing away passengers and in so doing demonstrates that they have absolutely no idea how to run a monopoly and make money at it. But kids seem to do well on the Monopoly board game and make money without a problem. I wonder if the tin-pot scheming that was the focus of the mothercorp and sustained it for years works on the level of children's games. I can just imagine the dickensian business whizzes from the mothercorp glowering over a child embroiled in disputes over percentages playing at monopoly. Tin-pot scheming over petticoat junction while ruthless self-styled sky gods goad them on from behind twisting that arm ever-tighter. Is that picture clear enough? Oooops. That was insulting and may be construed as arrogant. One should never cast pearls of wisdom before priviledge. And what has this priviledge done to the retirees who spent decades counting on a peaceful retirement? That the subsequent generation should be such scoundrels as to throw the elderly into the street for the costly benefit of gloating over regional writhings. There have been lesser crimes, of course, such as throwing the most junior at the regional out of work or plotting the extortion of the entire travelling public. To some extent, the extortion of the travelling public had accomplices for a time in Ottawa, but that heyday has now ended as well. The regionals have turned out to be a rather expensive buffer for economic hard times, I certainly hope it was worth it in the months leading up to bankruptcy. All without the help of Ottawa. (Well, ok -point of argument there, correct me if I am wrong.) Long live the mothercorp and may the regionals gleefully hop over her dead body in whatever capacity they choose. But then again, if the mothercorp manages to survive like the wiley coyote, then the advent of brightly-painted 767's and 340's should come as no surprise. Through the haze of the future flaps a day-glo enthusiasm and smile buttons on the lapels of the once-proud and dour aeroflottists that controlled the skies. It is only a shame that I could not discover where I might buy aeroflot wings to pin to my jacket celebrating airline glasnost in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 short answers to the best of my knowledge 243 were not "kept on" for a long or short time. surpluses were declared, layoff notices issued. (AC pilots had previously taken a voluntary hour reduction to avoid layoffs in the 80's but that did not happen in the 90's). Wet-lease credit has zero to do with this topic. In the past AC has wet-leased aircraft for one reason or another and in those cases AC pilots as per their contract were paid for that flying. No layoff clause was not applicable due to a legal ruling on the contractual language. No deals were made secret or otherwise. PS This really is ancient history you know... Cheers Chico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCDU Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 The 243 (plus a few more)were declared surplus in 1990. The pilot group agreed to flex down to a lower mm which resulted in furlough deferral during the life of that agreement. Everybody flew, nobody sat. When that LOU expired in early '93- 243 were furloughed for 2+ years( yes, no pay, no benefits.) The no-furlough clause wasn't worth the ink with which it was written due to "forces beyond the company's control". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz2 Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 "forces beyond the company's control", could you elaborate on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Thanks MCDU of course I now know what the best of my memory is! As a historian I've had it! Cheers RM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhunter Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 I'm dizzy! So which worm owns the cod and which fisherman gets to eat the last breeding pair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 "The 243 (plus a few more)were declared surplus in 1990. The pilot group agreed to flex down to a lower mm which resulted in furlough deferral during the life of that agreement. Everybody flew, nobody sat." The 320 was being phased in and the 72 out. The 243 were for the most part serving as oilers. Because of the ac transition most of those people flew as little as one day a month for a very long time. "When that LOU expired in early '93- 243 were furloughed for 2+ years( yes, no pay, no benefits.) The no-furlough clause wasn't worth the ink with which it was written due to "forces beyond the company's control"." What were these forces? I'd suggest the devil was in the details of the secret deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCDU Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Because of the ac transition most of those people flew as little as one day a month for a very long time. This is not even close to being true. Those who were furloughed flew full blocks until the date they hit the street. I know. I was one of them. What were these forces? I'd suggest the devil was in the details of the secret deal. Maybe you should lay off the Twilight Zone episodes for a while. The forces were the economics of running an airline. Quite simply, with the transition to 2 man cockpits- we weren't needed. The wording of the no-layoff clause was not tight enough and could not be legally enforced. Our MEC certainly tried. I'm curious, though, what would make you think that there was a "secret deal"? Why would a union sell out it's own members and how would they ever hope to get away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCDU Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 The 243 were made up of military, corporate, bush AND ex-regional pilots. Nobody jumped any queue. There was an established process for getting hired- one that had existed for fifty-some years. Those in the 243 followed the same process everyone else had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 It's simple. GD attends secret meeting with HH. Agreement - AC pilots take a 5% wage rollback and agree to layoff. AC swoops ANO's regional jet order and tightens up scope etc! That's the basis of the "secret deal"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 "This is not even close to being true. Those who were furloughed flew full blocks until the date they hit the street. I know. I was one of them." Well, I know a number of them as well and they sat on their butts on reserve doing next to nothing for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 We both know that ANO had no RJ orders. They had options. Big difference. Just the facts please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fasteddy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 If it was a fact that Jazz had "options"on ten A319's,I bet there would be a big difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Okay they had options. AC swooped ANO's opportunity to exercise those options hence, ANO didn't have the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.