buzz Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 A reputable source has it that ACPA walked out of the final meeting with Keller in Boston on Friday. Rumour has it that ACPA was quite unhappy with the direction Keller has been going. Silence from our esteemed representatives to date. Stay tuned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 'cuse the ignorance, but what was this Keller meeting discussing? (and why in Boston?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 With the reduction bid coming out very shortly, it will be interesting to see how ACPA tries to maneouvre around the CIRB and the Keller arbitration. You'd think that after all that Air Canada has been through in the last little while, even the ACPA diehards could see that the pilots do not control the company, they control the aircraft, and therefore the premise that Mitchnick based his list on was flawed. The CIRB has been trying to create, through the Keller arbitration, a seniority list based on criteria other than the financial appearance of the employer at the time of the merger. It's about time that ACPA supported that process for the benefit of all Air Canada pilots and so that we will have a unified pilot group as we tackle the challenges of restructuring the airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erialx Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 If this is true it just fits the profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Original AC Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 I guess were just tired of looking over our shoulder to see Jazz trying to stick a knife in our back, and CAIL sitting there whinning about their seniority. I guess UI would have been better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exGXer Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 Well, at least you cannot say that they're not consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 Your claim that Mr. Mitchnick based his merged list on the premise that the pilots control the company is not correct. Unless you can read his arbitration and ignore, oh, about 95% of what he said, your claim is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote. Your further claim that the CIRB has been trying to create a seniority list based on criteria other than the financial situation of the employer at the time of merger is accurate as far as it goes, but when read in conjunction with your previous claim would suggest that the entire Mitchnick award has been nullified and will be rewritten, because the fundamental basis of that award has been invalidated. That again is inaccurate. The basics of Mr. Mitchnick's arbitration were validated and upheld by a subsequent CIRB review. As far as I know, those basics are not up for substantial modification under Mr. Keller's current efforts. It will be a ratio list and it will be about two to one. Details at 11. Your last sentence would be just as valid were you to change the acronym "ACPA" for "exCAIL pilots". It's a zero sum game, Starman. Your sacrifice is my gain, and vice versa. If you truly believe that someone should be sacrificing for the betterment of all, then feel free to lead by example. After all, given equivalent outcomes, it makes more sense for the few to sacrifice for the many, rather than the other way 'round. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 I haven't seen the Keller award, and I don't know whether it will significantly change Mitchnick or not. You seem to have the inside track on that, and at 2 to 1 (if you're right), you shouldn't have much to worry about, which makes me wonder why the ACPA reps would walk out of the meeting? We might as well just relax until the new list is out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 "walked out"...as opposed to being carried out? BTW The silence is court-ordered. Chico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 I have no inside information whatsoever on the Keller award or how it may look. The only basis that I have for any claim in that regard is Mr. Lordon's review, which forms the basis of the subsequent revision which Mr. Keller is doing. In Mr. Lordon's review, he states that DOH is inappropriate in this case, that a ratio merger is the way to go, and that the ratio should be two to one. The only reason there is a Keller review is because Mr. Lordon says there should be one. Therefore, one would expect that Mr. Keller will defer to those points that have been established and validated by the two previous CIRB arbitrators. Should Mr. Keller subsequently alter the fundamental points that were established by previous arbitrators in this case, including the arbitrator who established the terms of reference of his review, I would then say that we will have a monumental mess on our hands. A mess the likes of which makes the foregoing merger process look very tidy indeed. Did the ACPA reps walk out of the meeting? If they did, why did they do so? Coffee break? Aging bladders? Unless you have information in that regard, all that's on the table is one anonymous poster asking for verification of a rumor he or she heard. Not a lot to hang one's interpretation on, is it? Should we just relax until the new list is out? Very wise advice. When it is, we can lick our own wounds, offer bandages to our colleagues, and carry on. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exGXer Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 'bandages' Neo, ACPA usually hands out salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shamus Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 For O AC I am at a complete loss as to why this should surprise you. You gents created the foundation of the conflict and since 1994 have capped, scoped and even scabbed the Regional pilots. And now when we do the same thing to you, you somehow see this as unfair (sticking a knife in your back!). Stand by for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeanmermoz Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 You really succeeded at having some people going at it again. It is hilarious.... ChicoChico, below, is absolutely right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 And so you will as well? If you don't expect ACPA to do the right thing, then do it yourself. The necessary changes will start with the individual, not with the collective, anyway. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 For Origional AC If you really are "Origional AC" then you would understand fully the implications of your "knife in the back" statement and change your name to JUDAS. You have no integrity, no honour and are a coward! Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 If you're a junior about to get your walking papers I'd suggest the only reason you got to where you are (about 7 years ahead of your time) is because of ACPA's past and present practices. Reality is a cruel thing to face. Best of luck to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 "and since 1994" 1989 was actually the beginning of the scope project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 Yes, And what is funny is that the scope clause was implemented in order to facilitate the merging of seniority lists. Weird eh? GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maranatha Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 Right on RR! As usual! Best Regards! IE. P.S. This is a pretty hot string, especially since it's based only on conjecture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 8, 2003 Share Posted June 8, 2003 The AC pilot house rules which of course are subject to change as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HPT-TOUR Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Now this is funny, look at how much a senior AC type has lost in wages just to keep scope. If you read the CALPA constitution it seems the gentlemen that came before us had a pretty good handle on todays situation. Talk about history repeating itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1V2Vgo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Stick a knife in your back? Buddy, this is survival based on pure economics. Might I remind you that the recent terms in the JAZZ contract were the result of findings by one or more impartial, independent boards. Of course ACPA does have a wee history in dealing with rulings by similar boards. TAKE THE PACKAGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.