DEFCON Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Respectfully, you should believe it. The ALPA deal is ratified. Is the ACPA deal? One other thing to consider, could it be possible that the ACPA contract scope language be violated by the company right now since all grievances are stayed in CCAA? Could management simply say " too bad! Jazz gets 19-110 seats. You can grieve it when we emerge from CCAA " and at that point Jazz is sold as regional carrier operating 19-110 seat aircraft? Lots of interesting scenarios can be played. IMO, I think both pilot groups are getting duped here. And since the Management at the company is obviously capable of bargaining in bad faith (vis-a-vis the ALPA LOU 20 and the existing ACPA scope language.) shouldn't both groups sit down together and have a little tete-a-tete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Without "DOH" the process cannot go forward. Personally, we only live once and the AC group stole my future once and I'm not going to sit by while you do it again! Perhaps someone will file a CE application and the CDN and Jazz types could band together for DOH puroses etc and put ACPA and its crap to bed for once and for all! DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Jim I don't know if your intention was to promote discord and set down another layer of bricks on the ever building ACPA/ALPA wall but you seem to be doing it again. By "it" I mean passing along false and very misleading information. For example - three quotes in your posting : Can a merger be negotiated? I doubt that can happen. Why? Because DOH will never work for ACPA members, …… And I believe that many ALPA members may possibly have dream of the 767 and maybe the 340 as options with those dates of hire….. And …. The adversarial approach to merging lists would take the usual, costly approach, with ALPA arguing DOH, and ACPA endtail. … C'mmon Jim, you know darn well that DOH was NOT (repeat N-O-T) what Picher was all about. In fact 85% of your ACPA list would have been ahead of the regional list. The senior Air Ontario pilot would NOT (repeat N-O-T) have been bumping you out of your seat. I'm pleased to see that you did not post the nonsense about a regional pilot bidding onto the 747 but repeating the DOH bit is not fair. It's been said that if you keep telling the lies, keep twisting the facts, pretty soon you'll re-write history. Other than that, I do agree with some of the point you raise. Take care, John S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maranatha Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Thrice...and counting! Last time this subject was broached in my flight deck, the pilot affected simply gave me a Gallic shrug and said, "Ah well, I'll just stay home and be Mr. Mom, and let my wife work." Not one word of appreciation for the 5-7% pay cut I had taken for him. He's not typical but that attitude is still out there. Time for economic Darwinism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Read John S's post to JW just above. And think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maranatha Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Hey 'nuts! Maybe CP Fa is a guy! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yes it's true. The passive/aggressive style, belies how disingenuos JW is on this subject. He should know better, and you know what?...He does. Cheerio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 That would certainly be a complete shock to my husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Stand by one. I'll go ask my husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virtual Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Just a thought, but despite this last hurtle of the CDN/AC merger being finalized, CDN 'types' might be quite happy to have ACPA represent their interests in the present and all future 'endeavors'. I guess that would be an individual decision...some pro/some con...but the majority???!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 I sure don't expect anything to happen today, DEFCON. I'm looking out at a longer time frame. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Defcon Well that about puts everything into perspective and why wer are the sorriest lot of professionals in this country!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 John and CDFA, I believe that Jim was simply speaking plainly, and voiced his opinions as discussion points, not with negative intent. You may believe that Picher established some kind of precedent, but I fail to see how. Picher was an arbitrated agreement entered into by the regional and mainline pilots on their own, under very different circumstances. However, a future successful Common Employer ruling at the CIRB would then trigger a merged list, also done by the CIRB unless the parties were able to voluntarily agree. ALPA pilots would ask for whatever kind of merged list they thought they could achieve and settle for, either at the negotiating table or in front of a CIRB arbitrator. Nothing about Picher constrains what they would or could ask for in a new venue. Now, why don't you tell Jim again how out of line his thinking is? RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Satisfaction wouldn't enter in to the matter. Just ask the parties to the current mainline merger how satisfied they all are! A successful CE application at the CIRB would trigger a merged list, either one voluntarily agreed to by the two groups, or one that is imposed by the CIRB. Just like the one that's being created now at the mainline. You either voluntarily agree to a negotiated outcome, or you accept what the CIRB thinks is fair. You don't get to walk away from a ruling, decline to participate, or storm off in a huff. No matter how dissatisfied you are. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Your comments about the Pineau ruling are accurate, and you make a good point about where the harm may lay. Perhaps it will be ACPA that initiates a CE application in front of the CIRB. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Not in this particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tri-spool Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Be careful what you wish for, you may be a very quick victim of it! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CleardecksforACTION! Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Neo; Speaking plainly, yes, and I must say that on the surface I like the conciliatory, tone, but for such an otherwise erudite contributer to misrepresent the (JAZZ) ALPA position as being steadfastly DOH (as stated repeatedly)... well it sullies the 'conciliatory' part, and gives me rise to question the motive. JW- I've called you on this subject before... My take on it is that you can't accept one iota of credit for a JAZZ pilots' YOS, but to make yourself sound reasonable, you need to make ALPA sound unreasonable (ie- 'DOH or nothing!'). There are infinite in-betweens and JW knows it. So speaking plainly doesn't necessarily mean speaking frankly. 'Just MHO' Cheerio! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Picher may not have set a precedent, but I believe Pineau did. CE is dead. I don't think the CIRB would want to open that one up again. They would be slapping themselves in the face. I also don't think you will find too many regional pilots that will want to go down that road again. Too expensive.JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Clumsy Lover Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Hi Jennifer The "grey tops" contributions have not gone unnoticed so far as job protection goes. The entire group has done some great things in the past to keep guys around, I only hope that I will be in the position to do the same some day. As one of the soon to be laid off guys I can appreciate the fact that the group is still trying to mitigate layoffs because the sad reality is with the demogaphics of todays group a lot of the junior guys are grey tops themselves. I wish it was like the old days where the average junior pilot was 23 but with most guys in their late 30 and 40's with families it makes it a little more complicated than moving back into your folks basement. I hold no grudge toward the baby boomers.. in fact I can thank them for a lot of things that they have worked hard to achieve that have enhanced flight safety and other areas of the company. Ideally it comes down to finding a long term solution to avoid these constant ups and downs that have plauged this industry for years. What that solution is who knows but to constantly be throwing peoples lives into turmoil is not working... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCDU Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yeah, but we've caught him posting under your handle..... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Hi Clumsy... re: "What that solution is who knows but to constantly be throwing peoples lives into turmoil is not working... " That is right on the money! I've puzzled over that whole notion as much as the best of them, and the best I can do is imagine we're in a state of long term correction... The results of "deregulation" have not yet settled and it's a looooooong swing of a pendulum that may eventually wind up finding some kind of stability. In the mean time some of us grow old waiting for the swing to work in our favour. But, since life is what happens while we're busy making other plans, we have to find ways to smile through all the bumps. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CJ Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 Thats why it will be a decision forced upon both groups. Someone sensible has to decide whats fair. Any suggestions on who might be wise enough to do the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 All Pineau did was apply the rules which govern a Common Employer scenario. To the extent that a subsequent CE application matched the conditions of Pineau, yes it would establish precedent. However, the CE application under Pineau failed because no harmful whipsaw (in the CIRB's opinion) had occured. Will the CIRB be able to state the same given that two employee groups are bidding on the identical flying and equipment? The situation has clearly changed, and consequently the Pineau ruling may have little bearing on a hypothetical future CE application. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.