Guest Nail Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Just a few thoughts, I've been reading with interest all the threads about this possibility. I think we all have to appreciate that EVERYBODY is getting slammed here. (All unions) Having said that, we also have to appreciate the fact that these are not negotiations. The Airline is TRULY in desperate straits. The reasons are many, but at this time those reasons are largely irrelevant. Most of the posters seem to think that this is "contract time". I wish it were, in that sense, but it truly is not IMO. There was mention of it costing a Jazz F/A $500/mo, well I think you'll find EVERYBODY is getting a similar hit. I'm a 67 skip at mainline (sorry....one of those dreaded ACPA types!) and our hit is 16% direct on wages plus many other items, that total over 22% (some estimates as high as 25%)of the total "package" of "what it was before." I know I make a good wage (so please take it easy with your barbs!), but that adds up to about $4000/mo for myself. I have talked to other mainline pilot's that also are going to vote no on our TA, for similar reasons. My appeal is to all to seriously think about our future. Sadly, we ALL have to change our thinking with regard to this job. It's been a ton of fun over the years, but most of these basic fundamentals have CHANGED. If future black ink allows some recapture of lost wages and benefits...great, but first we have to get this company out of the dumpster!! Every piece, big or small counts... union or management, Mainline or Jazz...it all has to add up. So I guess that means I'm voting yes.... because I seriously see NO ALTERNATIVE. Regards, Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1V2Vgo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Very good grasp, excellent posting sir. Phone a friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southshore Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 we'll worry about the details later. if the body dies the head dies too. i'm sorry for the folks taking the big hit but if we stay alive we might be able to come back and get you. The folks who are saying "nah, I ain't gonna do that" - take a hike - we've got a business to rescue. if you don't want to help - go away. There are lots who will happily take your place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 As an outsider, please just remember all these sentiments in a year's time, or 5 year's time once hindsight makes all things clear! Those who ignore history are deemed to repeat it... Best of luck to all with the eventual outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 "we also have to appreciate the fact that these are not negotiations. The Airline is TRULY in desperate straits." The company has certainly considered these as negotiations... one sided mainly. They could make demands that they could never have made during normal circumstances. They took advantage of that. My biggest problem with all this is the double dealing by CR. He agreed to a new scope clause for Jazz that conflicted with the one at the mainline. When a contract is signed, both parties must undertake to respect it, unless it's changed with both parties' agreement. He undermined AC's promise and commitment to its word. No matter what you think of the RJ issue, I think that this was an example of negotiating in bad faith. (Jazz guys and gals should heed this, because they'll screw you at the earliest opportunity) I never agreed that the mainline should fly those RJ's. The 75-110 types are a different question though. However, I'm not inclined to vote "yes" because the company's word is not worth the paper it's written on. I think that, for me to vote yes, CR would have to get the sack. This would reestablish some trust and good will between the parties, and a commitment from the company that it conduct itself in the future with integrity. Right now, I don't trust the company to honour its committments. (remember: you break the contract and you get the sack. They break to contract and it's one long delaying action to the grievenace hearing) Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Dear Mr Nail, While you and I have locked horns on this forum in the past on other issues, I do have to say that I appreciate your candor and common sense in this time of crisis. NO ONE likes the idea of rolling back anything in a contract from a labour point of view, and I'm sure the management team would rather be anywhere else but where this company is today (on "the brink" for anyone still on fantasy island) Your union and most of the others (our union MEC ratified on our behalf, 100% yes I guess) have a vote coming up shortly and while most everyone probably finds the idea of loss of wages and working conditions distasteful, the alternative is worse, much worse. If a yes vote and getting the company back in shape preserves employment, pensions, and benefits, albeit perhaps not as much as pre apr 01, 2003 that is a good thing, as for those getting furloughed, hopefully it will be short term and a stronger company to come back to. I'm not sure what the retirement projections are at ACPA but hopefully your members would likely be recalled in a few years with the projected retirements? We have layoffs ourselves, they were projected and bid accordingly before the CCAA filing as we did not have contractual protection of employment when we merged. Our first layoffs occur July 1 then Aug 1 for the rest I believe. We regret those losses as well, and those getting laid off while not thrilled about it, also realize that overstaffing is overstaffing. They hope to return to a stronger and more succesfull Jazz airline, hopefully in the not so distant future. You are most correct in saying that everyone is feeling the pain from this situation. We need to live to fight another day and hopefully as you say, recoup some of the past rewards we enjoyed, when the company is stonger and viable again. I hope that someday I can take advantage of a jumpseat with you should I need it commuting to my new base in YYZ from the balmy west coast? Sincerely, Rob Assaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Goggles, I agree with a lot of your points, however I see us between a rock and a hard place. CR appears to be the one who bargained off rights that were contractually ours. He obviously is a thorn in the side of "bargaining in good faith." From the onset, when I saw his title overseeing this "process", it had me concerned. All too often, both ACPA and AC CALPA before them had to be the "contract police". Times haven't changed here, nor will they any time soon IMO. All unions appear to be reluctantly seeing that concessions are necessay. It is interesting however to watch the ALPA reaction. The appearance (I am not trying to be inflammatory here!) is one of artificial concern over the company's woes, thinly vieled by the realization of a potential windfall gain in the 75 to 110 jet offer. Sorry boys and girls, but that is what I see through the current smoke screen. This was obviously worked to max effect by CR. JW, and Neo's posts above are all to true IMO. I would like to think (dilussional on my part?!) that both ACPA and ALPA should see the negative kinetic energy being built up here. It will only serve to undermine the job for all. Some type of agreement between the pilot groups on a list is the only way to move forward in a progressive manner. DOH is a non starter, as is BOTL. Like jobs, "ratioed" in at the level of the top "like-job" at mainline seems to be the sensible approach. (Pay related or job related, take your pick) There must be mainline types that commute from say YHZ that would love to fly something small from there for awhile, and some Jazz types that would love to sip on a VB in SYD as an RP. Senior Jazz types could look at the possibility of reaching 320 or even 67 skip before retirement. (Or not if you like the Regional world... Rob!) Junior AC types could have security knowing that their ranks won't be erroded as new smaller jets appear. The pay system throughout the A/C types could reflect some competitiveness for the Airline's bottom line, while preventing a "rush to the bottom" by the pilots by beating each other down over "who can fly for less". A possibility? Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Goggles, I agree with a lot of your points, however I see us between a rock and a hard place. CR appears to be the one who bargained off rights that were contractually ours. He obviously is a thorn in the side of "bargaining in good faith." From the onset, when I saw his title overseeing this "process", it had me concerned. All too often, both ACPA and AC CALPA before them had to be the "contract police". Times haven't changed here, nor will they any time soon IMO. All unions appear to be reluctantly seeing that concessions are necessay. It is interesting however to watch the ALPA reaction. The appearance (I am not trying to be inflammatory here!) is one of artificial concern over the company's woes, thinly vieled by the realization of a potential windfall gain in the 75 to 110 jet offer. Sorry boys and girls, but that is what I see through the current smoke screen. This was obviously worked to max effect by CR. JW, and Neo's posts above are all to true IMO. I would like to think (dilussional on my part?!) that both ACPA and ALPA should see the negative kinetic energy being built up here. It will only serve to undermine the job for all. Some type of agreement between the pilot groups on a list is the only way to move forward in a progressive manner. DOH is a non starter, as is BOTL. Like jobs, "ratioed" in at the level of the top "like-job" at mainline seems to be the sensible approach. (Pay related or job related, take your pick) There must be mainline types that commute from say YHZ that would love to fly something small from there for awhile, and some Jazz types that would love to sip on a VB in SYD as an RP. Senior Jazz types could look at the possibility of reaching 320 or even 67 skip before retirement. (Or not if you like the Regional world... Rob!) Junior AC types could have security knowing that their ranks won't be erroded as new smaller jets appear. The pay system throughout the A/C types could reflect some competitiveness for the Airline's bottom line, while preventing a "rush to the bottom" by the pilots by beating each other down over "who can fly for less". A possibility? Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Goggles, I agree with a lot of your points, however I see us between a rock and a hard place. CR appears to be the one who bargained off rights that were contractually ours. He obviously is a thorn in the side of "bargaining in good faith." From the onset, when I saw his title overseeing this "process", it had me concerned. All too often, both ACPA and AC CALPA before them had to be the "contract police". Times haven't changed here, nor will they any time soon IMO. All unions appear to be reluctantly seeing that concessions are necessay. It is interesting however to watch the ALPA reaction. The appearance (I am not trying to be inflammatory here!) is one of artificial concern over the company's woes, thinly vieled by the realization of a potential windfall gain in the 75 to 110 jet offer. Sorry boys and girls, but that is what I see through the current smoke screen. This was obviously worked to max effect by CR. JW, and Neo's posts above are all to true IMO. I would like to think (dilussional on my part?!) that both ACPA and ALPA should see the negative kinetic energy being built up here. It will only serve to undermine the job for all. Some type of agreement between the pilot groups on a list is the only way to move forward in a progressive manner. DOH is a non starter, as is BOTL. Like jobs, "ratioed" in at the level of the top "like-job" at mainline seems to be the sensible approach. (Pay related or job related, take your pick) There must be mainline types that commute from say YHZ that would love to fly something small from there for awhile, and some Jazz types that would love to sip on a VB in SYD as an RP. Senior Jazz types could look at the possibility of reaching 320 or even 67 skip before retirement. (Or not if you like the Regional world... Rob!) Junior AC types could have security knowing that their ranks won't be erroded as new smaller jets appear. The pay system throughout the A/C types could reflect some competitiveness for the Airline's bottom line, while preventing a "rush to the bottom" by the pilots by beating each other down over "who can fly for less". A possibility? Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Good thoughts Nail. I'm with you. Lousy stuff. It's gonna hurt. But damnit, it's necessary unless you want to see the doors close. The next 6 years or so will be interesting! Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 We absolutely need to find a long term solution, and put the pilots together. Easier said than done though. I'm curious about the comment I've heard a few times on here, though, along the lines of it being illegal to award Jazz the scope clause of 75 seats, as of the day the current ACPA agreement expires. Some have said that you can't give away what is already ACPA's. But I don't understand why a clause in a contract is deemed to be able to live in perpetuity. Any clause in a contract is good until that contract expires---there is no implied agreement that any and all clauses shall exist indefinitely, unless it is expressly changed. Anyway, I was wondering if there was more than consoling hypothesis to this, and if there is any links to legal information that would support this claim. Frankly, I don't know what would prevent ACPA from signing an agreement that would get them the 75 seat flying back, in 2010, once the Jazz agreement expires? Ridiculous perhaps, but I think we all see the ridiculousness of this whole situation that we've gotten ourselves in. And by the way, about the Jazz 'artificial concern over the company's woes, thinly vieled by the realization of a potential windfall gain'. I suppose you are sort of right---it gives one kind of a warm sense when personal and corporate interests are both served so well. Increased career opportunities for Jazz pilots (and all employees) at the same time we assist in creating a stronger and more viable Air Canada. And it sure beats the heck out of the arguement that 'it may hurt the company, in it's our of greatest need, but we don't want to give it up because it is bad for us.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yer killin' me Nail. YOU said... >Like jobs, "ratioed" in at the level of the top "like-job" at mainline seems to be the sensible approach. (Pay related or job related, take your pick)< The irony demands attention. Someone else, who shall remain nameless(...oh what the hell I'll give you a hint; starts with a 'P'), presided over an arbitration, used that EXACT premise for the basis of his award. A 'dovetail' on the 'overlap' of job description (pay related or job related, take your pick)at each property. It left 85% of the larger list intact... Don't get me wrong, I think the premise is sound, it just makes one wonder what most of the senior guys like yourself actually knew of it (unless you're origionally from CAIL, in which case it's understandable). Cheerio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 CDFA, I was around for the other too. (original red team) The differance I see is that the old proposal was when there was no "common flying" that both sides were about to scrap over. The picher award was about giving the feed access to mainline jobs...period. This is new, as I see it. A proposal for a large number of aircraft in the 75 to 110 seat range that would have been under the scope, but with our current company crisis (along with AC double dealing on it's assigned endspot)is in a "grey zone." This new situation, along with the company's delight at using the whipsaw over it necessitates the process, IMO. Your Thoughts? Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 "But I don't understand why a clause in a contract is deemed to be able to live in perpetuity. Any clause in a contract is good until that contract expires---there is no implied agreement that any and all clauses shall exist indefinitely, unless it is expressly changed." If what you're saying was real, then this would be an employer's dream come true. Just let the contract lapse, and you can start paying them minimum wage; why negociate? A contract is supposed to be binding until a new one replaces it, or the company ceases operations. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Exactly..... The terms of the old contract remain in force until replaced. As you said, the day after expiry, the company could decide not to pay their employees etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Nail; OK I agree that this new situation is even less equivocal than the last time 'round, but,I was merely pointing out that your premise for a merger template was the same as Pichers'. There is just a difference of opinion on how much less equivocal. At that time, it was known that the CRJ's were going to go to the mainline and so Picher made the effort to ride around in the jumpseats of the DC-9 for a couple of weeks, then the 146's and DH8's for the same. He made an estimation of what sort of flying and lifestyle the CRJ would be ecompassing; compared the pays of each fleet (AC CRJ, AO DH3, ABC and ANO 146) and determined that there was a legitimate overlap in that genre at each company. Seeing as how the mainline were getting 25 CRJ's (= approx. 250 pilots); thats where he made the cut-line. As I was saying, perhaps not quite as obvious as the current situation, but still remakably like-minded reasoning to your own. He11, I wish he had awarded an end-tail then, and many of us might have felt somewhat screwed, but been FAR better off in the end. In hindsight, the fight over (up to a maximum of) 243 sen. numbers has been more costly (to BOTH SIDES) than it was worth (except a win for all the fellas that got hired OTS since. A BIG bonus for them) Take care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Nail; OK I agree that this new situation is even less equivocal than the last time 'round, but,I was merely pointing out that your premise for a merger template was the same as Pichers'. There is just a difference of opinion on how much less equivocal. At that time, it was known that the CRJ's were going to go to the mainline and so Picher made the effort to ride around in the jumpseats of the DC-9 for a couple of weeks, then the 146's and DH8's for the same. He made an estimation of what sort of flying and lifestyle the CRJ would be ecompassing; compared the pays of each fleet (AC CRJ, AO DH3, ABC and ANO 146) and determined that there was a legitimate overlap in that genre at each company. Seeing as how the mainline were getting 25 CRJ's (= approx. 250 pilots); thats where he made the cut-line. As I was saying, perhaps not quite as obvious as the current situation, but still remakably like-minded reasoning to your own. He11, I wish he had awarded an end-tail then, and many of us might have felt somewhat screwed, but been FAR better off in the end. In hindsight, the fight over (up to a maximum of) 243 sen. numbers has been more costly (to BOTH SIDES) than it was worth (except a win for all the fellas that got hired OTS since. A BIG bonus for them) Take care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Nail; OK I agree that this new situation is even less equivocal than the last time 'round, but,I was merely pointing out that your premise for a merger template was the same as Pichers'. There is just a difference of opinion on how much less equivocal. At that time, it was known that the CRJ's were going to go to the mainline and so Picher made the effort to ride around in the jumpseats of the DC-9 for a couple of weeks, then the 146's and DH8's for the same. He made an estimation of what sort of flying and lifestyle the CRJ would be ecompassing; compared the pays of each fleet (AC CRJ, AO DH3, ABC and ANO 146) and determined that there was a legitimate overlap in that genre at each company. Seeing as how the mainline were getting 25 CRJ's (= approx. 250 pilots); thats where he made the cut-line. As I was saying, perhaps not quite as obvious as the current situation, but still remakably like-minded reasoning to your own. He11, I wish he had awarded an end-tail then, and many of us might have felt somewhat screwed, but been FAR better off in the end. In hindsight, the fight over (up to a maximum of) 243 sen. numbers has been more costly (to BOTH SIDES) than it was worth (except a win for all the fellas that got hired OTS since. A BIG bonus for them) Take care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tri-spool Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Yes they will be! And for many of us on the unemployment line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Hi Tri-spool, I hate to see anyone losing their job, as I'm sure, we all do. If there were some way to prevent it.... But you know that's not the case... So, when it comes to a vote, it's not like we're voting anyone off the island. We're voting to accept the horrible deals that are apparently needed to keep the company alive. For reasons beyond our ability to immediately change... our employer is in huge trouble. If we want to have a chance to stay on board for the ride (which is still a very uncertain ride!), we need to accept this smack in the face and go with it.... Hopefully, in time we'll see everyone we lose come back again. Or perhaps many will find smoother skies elsewhere... Best of luck ...to you, and to all of us. Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tri-spool Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Hey Mitch, I understand what your saying, but to set the record straight I have not decided which way I will vote. There still exists to many unknowns. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I still think that information is being withheld. I need more info! When is the equipment bid coming out? What effect will the new seniority list pose? How come our MEC has not supported the final deal, or at least asked us to ratify it? Too many unanswered questions! I hope the next few weeks brings some clarity to the situation! Not just for me, but for everyone involved. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nail Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 CDFA, Thanks for your reasoned response. I think it is in EVERYONES interest to find a common solution here. I realize there are hard-asses on both sides, but hopefully a minority! Name calling and skeleton rattling from either side will only shot oneself in one's foot! It is time to find a solution for all IMO. ...Off to LHR now for tea with the Queen, Nail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.