Guest ACLPA Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 If ACPA has the 55 seat scope clause then they win again. At least the Jazz guys got a couple of days of joy. Now their party's over. Bye bye Jazz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jazz Monkey Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 From Jazz MEC Scope: Aircraft with a certified maximum seating capacity up to 75 seats will utilize pilots employed by Air Canada Jazz represented by ALPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milehighclub Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Just read the agreement sent by the MEC and JAZZ will fly everything below 75 seats effective April 2 2004. For JAZZ pilots, read carefully the agreement sent to you. MHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACLPA Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 They can't both be correct. I'd say the bigger fish has more clout. 55 seats probably stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz2 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Nobody won, when will everybody get it throught their heads, ACPA or Alpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZZdxer Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Dear ACLPA Very nice....I must offer my congraulations to you on a most profound and insightful post. ( yes that comment was dripping with sarcasm) The only way anyone is going to 'win' is by those of us who are left helping to return the company to financial stability, so that those who are laid off now can have the opportunity to come back to work. Undoubtly this is a painful time for all of us in the AC family. It also marks a significient opportunity as well. Stop your gloating/goading and do what u can to get on with the job at hand Regards Mark Christopher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Finally, a voice of reason...well done, sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Maudite gang de bébés. De vrais pros du brassage de merde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Maudite gang de bébés. De vrais pros du brassage de merde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Maudite gang de bébés. De vrais pros du brassage de merde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rance Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 "if acpa has the 55 seat scope clause then they win again". Take a look at the state of air canada and please enlightnen me at what you won...i'm sure the employees with lay-off notices on both sides will not share in your victory. "bye bye jazz" Not even close.I guess you don't get much news where ever you live,but i'm sure the sky is pretty. I guess this week hasn't taught you a damn thing. So it continues........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Your post in reponse to mine ????Sorry, no comprende Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Your response a moi??? Sorry, non comprende Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACLPA Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I don't really think that there is a winner here. In fact I'd say that both groups have lost out on the opportunity to merge, therebye eliminating the need for scope, and for a whole bunch of other garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Observer78 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Mr Powick It basically says that the above post is yet another attempt at stirring the pot. I believe it was aimed at the original poster. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Evening Jazz Monkey. Since Nickie D left the hotel at midnight to get a little face time in front of the cameras last night, he wasn't around to hear the changes that transpired. I'd put forward to you that unless the package you got shows a revision dated after 02:00am this morning, then you have incorrect info. Not meant to inflame ..just inform. The scope line has been moved back to the 55 seat level. Anything above that is open to bidding by everyone if Jazz actually want's to operate them. That would render the 25-30 70 seaters back to the open bidding block I guess. Hope you folks didn't bet the farm for those seats...... KM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B75/76 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 If the new arrangement with ACPA changes the agreement made with ALPA ref scope, and if ALPA were not privy to the changes, where does leave the status of the ALPA agreement of last week? Would management have two directly opposing contracts? Surely that would lead to much grief. There must have been agreement between all three parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Anything can always change, as we know. But couldn't you try to be a little less pompous and smug in your misinformed postings? I don't want to try to make anyone else feel like they have 'lost'. But try and imagine how you would feel if a Jazz pilot told you that you were toast because we got promised they'd tell us when the bigger airplane came, whereas you had a clause saying that you were guaranteed that flying. It wouldn't be a spot I would be gloating about. It would be like ridiculing you for the Boeing 717 flying that Jazz is getting, when in fact we have merely earned the right to bid on it. And as for 'Nickie D' leaving too early and missing all the 'real' action, you can't actually believe that, can you? I'm quite sure between the union, the corporation, the court, and the monitor, someone would have caught the fact that one have the unions were going to have to renegotiate their contract from scratch. And then 'Nickie D' would have been quite busy today dealing with substantive change to a ratified and signed agreement that had already been presented to the court. Good luck to you and all of us as we continue to work through this difficult time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alldatjazz Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Actually, the preamble to the Jazz Letter of Unerstanding says that the productivity enhancements which were agreed to are void if the "Jazz Plan" is not accepted. I think that means tha the agreement would not be in force. Can anyone in the know comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillyBigToe Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Think about what you just posted. We HAD and HAVE scope. YOUR agreement was contrary to the one we had in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klein Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 KM; I would respectfully suggest you read the posting of .70 mach above, then have a gander at the post made by JZZdxer below. Agreements have been made; its time for all of us to do the best we can and move this company forward. If we work together, we can all be a part of the solution; and be proud of it too! Regards, Klein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Ahh what fun this game can be ACLPA. This clearly lowers the bar because if we have to bid on equiptment to fly it ... acpa has effectivly lowered the bar..again.. So I will personally see you in hell !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Two agreements that disagree completely. I guess this means that someone has been talking out of both sides of their mouth; which also means the dollar amounts in cuts have not been met. It doesn't matter what any of us think, or AC or the Judge for that matter.... The creditors are everything and are not going to buy in to the same old plan. This WILL turn in to a labour dispute...all over again, and soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Two agreements that disagree completely. I guess this means that someone has been talking out of both sides of their mouth; which also means the dollar amounts in cuts have not been met. It doesn't matter what any of us think, or AC or the Judge for that matter.... The creditors are everything and are not going to buy in to the same old plan. This WILL turn in to a labour dispute...all over again, and soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest QFE Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Isn't there any other forum you could post on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.