Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 A little more clarity seems to be needed on RJ's at Jazz, understandable since the language and concepts are a bit complicated. With respect to RJ's at Jazz, there is no requirement for Jazz to take the 25 AC SJ's. So long as 25 SJ's continue to be flown at the mainline, then Jazz can get its full complement of SJ aircraft of 39 +/-. Also, the 10 specific BAE-146's being flown were grandfathered as SJ's until they are replaced, and constitute part of the 39 +/-. Philip Aubin AC pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Propalong Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Hi Phil and Sidestick. Theoretically speaking, if there were a large number of Jazz pilots willing to accept a BOTL and end this feud once and for all who could they contact at ACPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Propalong Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Hi Phil and Sidestick. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a large number of Jazz pilots willing to accept a BOTL and end this feud once and for all who could they contact at ACPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Philip, thank you for engaging. I'm not sure what portions of the scope clauses will ultimately survive, at either company. If it comes right down to it and the creditors are about to fold the operation, the unions will face hard choices. The courts may not force the unions to accept contract breaches, however in my opinion we would all do better, ALPA and ACPA, if we have a good alternative that even Calin has to acknowledge makes sense. I am not an expert in this field, and you are. From what little I've gathered, BOTL without fences would be accepted by ACPA, and possibly by a portion of those at Jazz. For a good portion of those there, in normal times, BOTL would change nothing. We are not, of course, in normal times. If I were an Bae146 Capt at Jazz (I do not work for Jazz), BOTL would trigger a lot of baggage, and, quite frankly, we have enough disaffected members at AC. It is our inability as a group to deal with these divisions that, to me, has been our greatest weakness over the past decade. If the AC group acquires new RJ's, be they more 50 seaters or 90 seaters (or whatever), what is the cheapest way to bring them in and operate them? Using the existing cadre where possible. By bringing the 10 Jazz RJ's and their crews intact into AC we increase economies of scale, without any new training. As we add aircraft, our ability to bring them on line is much enhanced. Read less expensive, i.e. good for the creditors. As a 146 skipper would likely be an RJ skipper in the new Jazz order, it makes sense to me to recognise that fact. Now, to make that happen they would have likley have to bump existing RJ skippers to the Dash or RJ right seat. What a waste, especially when AC has trouble attracting RJ captains in Toronto during good times. So, what has ACPA lost so far? There is, of course, the shared pain aspect. With one list, no fences, existing ACPA members who are surplus on equipment get bumped down to more junior equipment. There is no benefit in my view to bringing the Jazz group into the fold and then flushing them out in a down bid. Too expensive, and frankly, a bad idea safety wise to take jet pilots and re-train them on props en masse. Not to mention, a likely show stopper for ALPA. That's where a temporary (pick a time length) fence kicks in. During the merger and restructuring, Jazz is protected on their 10 RJ's and existing Dash fleet, plus any new props they add. AC is protected on their existing fleet, including the 25 RJ's. The new RJ's could be considered at the mainline, it doesn't really matter, because with the merged list they would absorb jobs from the combined list. ACPA members who are surplus can bid down to any jet aircraft. They can't bump a Jazz driver off the Dash and they can't bump into an exclusively Jazz base (i.e YHZ). I'll need someone's help to sort out the RJ bumping. The goal is to protect as many already-qualified Jazz crews as practicable in position during the merger, not only to recognize what they are bringing to the table, but quite frankly to sustain the operation at minimum cost. At the same time, we would likley see still-qualified ACPA members bumping back down to the RJ, with a PPC that is still less than two years old. Clearly there will come a point where an ACPA member cannot hold a jet seat. At this point, rather than flush to the Dash, the ACPA member would be furloughed, but recalled to a jet position (e.g. 320) before it would be offered out of seniority to a Jazz pilot. This is not as bad as it sounds, because with pay cuts, a flat-salary pilot may do better working outside the company and holding on to seniority. I don't know. To those in ACPA that wonder why our members would be laid off like this, consider that ALPA (Jazz) will already have taken a big layoff from their existing equipment bid and the parking of the 146's. ACPA members are not paying for ALPA jobs. Once the list is combined, we will take a combined hit. BTW, based on the numbers I have seen, I will be gone either way, so I am not saving my skin with this, I am trying to build a company that is worth coming back to. How long does this protection last? I guess that depends on how long the furlough lasts. Once we return to some semblance of normal ops, the fences would drop away. Folks, I know I am missing large chunks of the solution here. That's where you come in. There is no better time to bury the hatchet than now. Speaking of which, I think it is pretty much assumed that the court cases (and no, I am not on either side of that sorry saga) would have to drop. We have to work together and it will take all of the energy and professionalism we have left to to what is right. Fire away! Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACsidestick Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.70 mach Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Vsplat, I like your ideas. I'll be six years at Jazz shortly with my seniority in the low 800's I might be able to limp along and avoid a layoff for then next few years as we restructure, and finally make this part of the airline profitable again. And I have to say this year has been the most difficult in our careers. But what am I really looking forward for here? The constant whipsawing back and forth between mainline and regional has got to stop. The folks over at Westjet must be laughing as we continue to eat our young. For what's it's worth all you ideas seem very reasonable to me and I would lend any kind of support to find a reasonable clear solution for both side. ALPA and it's MEC's as we speak are trying to get a head start in convincing the "higher ups" that the model of all flying with the CRJ's under 90 seats done solely at JAZZ. I for one do not think it will successful (my personal opinion) and would think there has to be a better solution between both parties for a long-term solution. My comment on the lawsuit is, I'm not involved, I don't support it, ALPA doesn't nor do we give any money, JAZZ management as well doesn't. It's only a group of employees that are acting separate from our union and I don't even know the exact number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Propalong Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Any chance I can get your e-mail address Philip. I would like to ask you a few questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 You guys just don't get it! The corp is in CCAA and no one is going to make it bigger than it already is. A much smaller AC mainline is the very probable result of CCAA. It's too bad Jazz can't find people that are willing to make a career of it and just forget all this flow through nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 A much smaller mainline and feeder. Who will you feed once the music stops? Like it or not, ALPA and ACPA depend on one another for their mutual interests in this exercise. There is only so much energy to go around. Will you spend yours fighting or looking for a sustainable solution? Your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Sure 75441.651@compuserve.com Philip Aubin AC Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I've always known what "the solution" is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.