Lowering The Bar

[Guest neo]

Now that the choice facing ACPA pilots will be between what the creditors are willing to pay, and unemployment, I'm wondering just how low we're willing to go.

I've listened, sometimes in embarassment and sometimes in fury, as a few of my colleagues have slagged WestJet pilots for their 'bar-lowering' pay structure. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot.

So, why don't you fellas tell us where you're drawing your line in the sand? The choice now will be between what the creditors are willing to pay, and unemployment for every one of us. Tell us where you make the choice; how low will you go before you choose to put your own and your family's future in the toilet.

saymach#, why don't you go first?

neo

[John S.]

Hi RR,

A couple of points on these last two posts...

You probably know that your union approached my union some weeks ago when they were doing some due diligence number crunching. You'll recall that several Jazz posters were outraged that ALPA would even considering offering any help to ACPA at all.

Well, I just found out tonight that ACPA never did use the vast resources of the ALPA number-crunching-airline-watching department. Very interesting how and why.

Point #2 - I expect that ACPA will very soon make an offer. This will be the new ACPA model to AC's future:

An offer to reduce the payroll by allowing vast layoffs, to operate the RJ's for less than a Jazz dash pilot, to forgo the next two raises, to give back the loyalty bonus and dish the fruit dish. All this would be in exchange for no layoffs of the top 2000 and a guaranteed top hat.

Who knows? Just idle typing.

By the way, I just read the ALPA news release. I wonder how it's going to be considered by the senior management.

[Guest George]

By the way, I just read the ALPA news release. I wonder how it's going to be considered by the senior management.

ALPA seems th think that senior management has some say in the future of the airline. I would check out that premise before I wasted a lot of time telling them that ALPA will work for half of what ACPA will

[John S.]

ALPA seems to think that senior management has some say in the future of the airline.

And you don't?

Well then, just who do you think is going to provide the creditors with a recovery plan?

[Guest George]

The business consultants hired by people like GECAS

[Guest terrier]

Embarrassment and fury here to.

[Guest Labtec]

Richard:

It is interesting to see that in these dark days our glorious leaders in Montreal are looking to the U.S. as the model for what we ought to do. The American pilots took a 23% hit does that mean we should do the same? Before you answer consider that during contract negotiation time we argued that Air Canada pilots were paid substantially lower than our american cousins. In some cases up to 60% less. People over here said "you are in Canada you can't compare your remuneration to the mighty americans. You have to earn a "canadian" wage." Now looking into the abyss people are gazing across the line to figure out how much we should relinquish.

Before you decide "how low you will go" you better look around the world and see where you are slotted in. When a TACA crew based in a third world country earns more than his equivilent in Canada, A G7 nation, there is something definately wrong.

Labtec

[Guest qtip]

If you would have recieved close to your U.S counterparts last contract the CCAA process would have started much sooner than it has.Why would you ask for the moon knowing that your company is it debt up to their $$$?Did you buy the boat,cabin,trailer etc. and want your own debt problems to be looked after by the company?Doesn't seem fair does it?

[Guest neo]

Hi John,

I thought it was common knowledge why ACPA didn't use ALPA's due diligence resources: because ACPA refused ALPA's request to have the information shared with AC's regional pilots. Yet another missed opportunity to build a bridge rather than a moat.

On the other hand, if you look at how the situation fell out, I don't believe the ACPA 'braintrust' actually intended for due diligence to go ahead. It took them six weeks to even get it started, which is to say after the deadline when Mr. Milton said he wanted an actual plan on the table! It ground to a halt in the first week when they didn't get all the docs they asked for. Does that strike you as being committed to that process?

My belief is that fairly early on, my union's leadership decided that they weren't going to make any concessionary offer, and that therefore due diligence was just a waste of time and money. Of course, that's not what the rank and file was told. Nor were we ever given an opportunity for input into that decision, assuming it took place. [see my comments on that little exercise in union democracy in the thread below.]

I realize those comments are speculative, but it's the only explanation that makes any sense of my union's actions, or lack thereof.

On your Point #2, I'd be surprised if you were wrong on your general point that ACPA will have an offer to table before long. I don't feel up to speculating what it will look like specifically, but I think I can say something generally about it.

Negotiating with the creditors in a bankruptcy protection situation is not the same as negotiating with a functional employer. Bankruptcy creditors, unlike owners in a healthy economic picture, are ready to walk away from the whole enterprise and take what's left with them. They have already written off a huge loss on their investment; they're not in a mood to hear some union try to tell them how things are going to play out during the reorganizing.

While I don't know what the details will look like, I expect the consequences to be severe for all unions, including my own.

Once again, would someone like to tell me why this outcome is better than negotiating prior to bankruptcy?

Richard Roskell

[Guest neo]

Hi John,

I thought it was common knowledge why ACPA didn't use ALPA's due diligence resources: because ACPA refused ALPA's request to have the information shared with AC's regional pilots. Yet another missed opportunity to build a bridge rather than a moat.

On the other hand, if you look at how the situation fell out, I don't believe the ACPA 'braintrust' actually intended for due diligence to go ahead. It took them six weeks to even get it started, which is to say after the deadline when Mr. Milton said he wanted an actual plan on the table! It ground to a halt in the first week when they didn't get all the docs they asked for. Does that strike you as being committed to that process?

My belief is that fairly early on, my union's leadership decided that they weren't going to make any concessionary offer, and that therefore due diligence was just a waste of time and money. Of course, that's not what the rank and file was told. Nor were we ever given an opportunity for input into that decision, assuming it took place. [see my comments on that little exercise in union democracy in the thread below.]

I realize those comments are speculative, but it's the only explanation that makes any sense of my union's actions, or lack thereof.

On your Point #2, I'd be surprised if you were wrong on your general point that ACPA will have an offer to table before long. I don't feel up to speculating what it will look like specifically, but I think I can say something generally about it.

Negotiating with the creditors in a bankruptcy protection situation is not the same as negotiating with a functional employer. Bankruptcy creditors, unlike owners in a healthy economic picture, are ready to walk away from the whole enterprise and take what's left with them. They have already written off a huge loss on their investment; they're not in a mood to hear some union try to tell them how things are going to play out during the reorganizing.

While I don't know what the details will look like, I expect the consequences to be severe for all unions, including my own.

Once again, would someone like to tell me why this outcome is better than negotiating prior to bankruptcy?

Richard Roskell