Guest High Speed Aluminum Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Ok, one last post before I change my Nick Name. I don’t believe AC pilots will vote no for a simple reason; consider this approximately 3400 Pilots, 1600 are ex-Canadian who will vote yes, 800 top end AC guys about to retire so they will vote yes to save the pension for a total of 2400 definite yes votes. Then add that your MEC has ratified the new TA… it’s a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starman Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Why do you suppose that the ex-CDN guys are more likely to vote yes? We've all been through this type of process before, and I, for one, am unhappy with the excessive financial burden being placed on the pilot group in the restructuring process, and with management's underhanded tactics in attempting to roll into the process items that have no business being there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skirt Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 I believe it's more like 1200 x-CAIL, of which around 100-200+ will either face a furlough or be damn close to the bottom. The vote will be close, and it all hinges on the scope (or lack thereof) wrt the 70-110? seat A/C arbitration. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 "...with management's underhanded tactics in attempting to roll into the process items that have no business being there" That's why I'm tempted to vote no, and I'm from the blue side. I can't understand how ACPA has allowed the company's contempt for the contract to endure for so long. This is the last straw. When a senior executive makes a deal with a union that puts another union's existing contract in doubt, I call that bargaining in bad faith, and shows a lack of integrity. You now have two contracts in conflict against each other. And then to add insult to injury, the lowest bidder takes all. This is a matter of principle for me, since I don't agree with all of the union's position on the issue itself. What's the point of ratifying the new contract if the company's word is not worth the paper it's written on? They'll surely want to break the new contract again in the future. The union has to demand some garantee that the contract will be upheld in the future (instead of huffing, and puffing, and puffing, and puffing ...etc), and there must be some other way than simply waiting 2 years for a grievance to be resolved during which time the company benefits. A reputable employer would have no problem with penalty clauses if they have no intention of breaking a contract. The union should demand from the company an apology for its behaviour in this matter, not have to deal with the executive in question anymore, and a promise to conduct itself in a responsible and inregral manner in the future. If the survival of the company is so dependent of the pilots, then it can't be such a difficult thing for the company to provide. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest High Speed Aluminum Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Ok, I stand corrected. I only have an outsiders view in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 "The union should demand from the company an apology for its behaviour in this matter, not have to deal with the executive in question anymore, and a promise to conduct itself in a responsible and inregral manner in the future. If the survival of the company is so dependent of the pilots, then it can't be such a difficult thing for the company to provide." Goggles Now, that's a real good idea, I like that! PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 "Now, that's a real good idea, I like that!" Pierre, If only it were that easy. I'm under no illusion. The union postures a lot, and that's about all. The company knows this so doesn't take them very seriously and continues to abuse the contract. Salut, Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACguy Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Trying to paint with a broad brush under these circumstances is deadly. This issue is not ex CAIL, original AC, ex-CRA, ex-connector, French, English, or anything other than personal. This issue became personal once Calin attacked scope. Scope has absolutely nothing to do with saving the company financially. The pipedream of new airplanes and farming out flying to other groups is and always will be a job security threat. When you ask a group to give up wages, and working conditions to improve overall competitiveness that makes snese. You even comprehend the idea that we are over-staffed given current economic conditions. The hope is we would ride this "perfect storm" with the opportunity to rebuild and bring back our fellow shipmates cast to the seas to fend for themselves. However, Calin and Co. have told us there may not be a ship to rebuild. Instead, the management would rather continually divide and conquer. Forcing yet another showdown between pilot groups. Could they not have come to some agreeable terms for all parties? You bet. Why? To improve morale and give us a rally vision. We will get better and stronger. Nope, instead while we are all over the barrel they decide to stick it to everyone any chance they get. Can anyone at this time honestly tell there spouse they have the utmost confidence in our leadership to steer us clear and provide for us as we once had? Nope...they continually pit us against each other and threaten us at every opportunity. In fact, every time a Pilot Position Assignment has come due in the recent past it has become a collective bargining tactic. This is how they circumvented our collective agreement with the LCC increased fleet to 20 or NO JOBS and down bid you go. I, for one, have no faith or trust in our directors. They simply have shown little regard for the people who make up this airline. We are simply a number or liability which they wish to decrease or maximize usefulness. I cannot understand how the accountability of our Board of Directors, CEO, VPs, and the like are not responsible for the ultimate downfall of this company. Take a good look at the flagship aircraft, especially the one comemorating 65 years it could show up next to the DC9 in the Aviation mueseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.