buzz Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Neo, you have been on a torrid pace with your postings, I think we get the idea. I have some serious doubts about the accuracy of your source, though. For example, you've posted a couple of times that exCRA would see 1988 DOH positioning. Impossible!!! Even if the ratio is anywhere near DOH (which I doubt), the agreement between CAIL and CRA was for CRA to be capped at August 1990. Are you purporting that CRA will vault over their CAIL listmates as well? Not even remotely possible. Please, please, please put some duct tape over your keyboard for the highly speculative stuff. Respectfully, buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goggles Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 It appears that there's been lots of provocation going on. Much of it appears to be baseless. ACPA walked before the end of the Keller hearings. Nobody knows why, especially since Keller could not divulge what he _really_ thinks. The official word after that was that Keller would arrive at a report in 10 days. That would be around the 17-18th. Then I was surprised the hear on this forum that the arbitration was coming out tomorrow Friday. Then another message that it was to be postponed indefinitely. I think that the disinformation started here, with lots of speculation about warnings to Keller about negative impacts, and interference by the Judge and other stakeholders etc etc. This I think is just nonsense. Keller cannot be swayed by anyone, lest he undermine his integrity, for now and forever. If I'm permitted to speculate myself, I think that ACPA walked out to give the impression that they know what the result is going to be, and that result is going to be unacceptable to their constituents. We've already seen mountains of messages to this effect, and the negative consequences to the TA ratification. In reality, when the result will be a little negative, but not so bad, then the OAC group will actually be happy and relieved, thank ACPA for their brinkmanship and go and vote yes to the TA. In short, they will have defused the impact of _any_ negative outcome, regardless of its degree. Now if the result turns out to be as bad as postulated, then ACPA could say: "see, we were justified, we knew all along, and we couldn't accept being part of the process anymore", and turn out to be heroes anyway. So the worst ACPA could have done for itself is play the game until the results are out, and be blamed for any negative impact, as little as this impact could be. Of course, this is all speculation on my part. Goggles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Hi buzz, I've given as many disclaimers as I've going to about the information I received; if it turns out the information is wrong, then what can I say? There is no way for me to verify the information I've been given for accuracy prior to offering it here. But speaking of which, would you kindly check the accuracy of your statement, "you've posted a couple of times that exCRA would see 1988 DOH positioning." To the best of my recollection, I've commented on that issue exactly once, wherein I asked a colleague to examine that "possibility", and see what effect it had on the seniority numbers. Of course, one could also make the inference, (a la Smiley in a John leCarre novel), that seeing as you HAVEN'T pointed out the inaccuracy of the other possibility I mentioned in that post: that all CAIL retirements to xCAIL pilots first... that you do believe that to be accurate information. Would that be correct, buzz? The only recommendation I give to anyone is, see the Keller Award before you make your decision on the T.A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fax Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 "There is no way for me to verify the information I've been given for accuracy prior to offering it here." Then why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fax Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 "There is no way for me to verify the information I've been given for accuracy prior to offering it here." Then why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fax Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 "There is no way for me to verify the information I've been given for accuracy prior to offering it here." Then why do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Fax, It appears that you would keep your colleagues in the dark by retaining information like this to yourself, all the while understanding full-well that the hands of the normal channel are tied. In that case, there isn't anything that I can say that will alter your frame of mind. The gulf between our understandings of what is right and wrong simply appears too great. Bear in mind, my friend, that should you keep your job, there will be hundreds of pilots who expected to keep theirs too but will apparently be on the streets. There will be many, many hundreds more whose incomes won't take a 15% hit, but many multiples of that. All of that in a blindside hit, Fax. If I impetuously blurted out a warning to my colleagues, well, mea culpa. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 >>>There will be many, many hundreds more whose incomes won't take a 15% hit, but many multiples of that.<<<< You are making a statement as if it were fact neo. It is only something that you believe to be the case. I happen to think that you are quite likely correct in that statement, but is it a better situation to have somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 folks take a 100% pay cut? Neo as a result of SARS, terrorism, global conflict and a new reality in the market place we are being asked to take a bullet for the team. The good news is that we have surgeons who give us a good chance of recovery and in time we'll get the team back on the playing field. I think that taking one for the team is better than sending a suicide bomber into the dressing room. Richard you have presented some really good original thinking on this forum. You think outside the box and present your case well. I have to admit, I don't get your thinking on this one. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Hi Greg: I agree that in the past I have read Richard's posts expecting my ideas to be challenged. An out-of-the-box thinker, as you say. This recent 'Jim Jones' incarnation, however, crosses the line. In the past I would at least consider his point of view and would often find a lot of truth in it. Now that he has been advocating such a destructive course of action for such self-serving reasons I feel that he has lost any credibilty he had with me and for many other posters, by the sound of it. Although he has been backpedaling fiercely he will always remain the wild-eyed fanatic now that I've seen this side of him. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Let's keep our issues straight please, Greg. Fax asked me why I passed on the information that had been given to me about the upcoming Keller Award. I answered truthfully. The discussion about which outcome facing Air Canada is the better one is a separate issue and one that you and I have debated elsewhere. You have simply asked the same questions again, and I don't have anything further to add to the answers I gave you previously. I may have something more to say before long, and if you have anything new to offer please don't hesitate to do so, but at the moment there's not much more to say. Best wishes, RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Back-pedalling furiously? Wild-eyed fanatic? Boy, do you see a side of me and my posts that I hadn't seen myself. And aligning me with Jim Jones, who poisoned hundreds of men, women, and children to their deaths... now that sounds like fair comment! But I tell you what, seeker. If I do change my opinion on any of the issues in question, I'll be man enough to state it here, sign my name to it, and drink your kool-aid after. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Back-pedalling furiously? Wild-eyed fanatic? Boy, do you see a side of me and my posts that I hadn't seen myself. And aligning me with Jim Jones, who poisoned hundreds of men, women, and children to their deaths... now that sounds like fair comment! But I tell you what, seeker. If I do change my opinion on any of the issues in question, I'll be man enough to state it here, sign my name to it, and drink your kool-aid after. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Hi Richard Fair enough. You are right in your critique of my post. It's the connection between Keller and the TA that I thought you were trying to make. Apologies Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 This is a very emotional situation for all of us. Whatever happens, is going to have a huge impact on the lives of many, and I imagine you more than a lot of us. I am guessing than you see yourself having to make a choice in a no win situation with not a lot of upside. I think most of us, including myself are going a little over the top in our posts. (I would include my suicide bomber analogy in that category.) At any rate I think that you would agree the the over the top postings are kinda understandable, but I am sorry for my part in it. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Ah, buzz? Did you need a little more time with that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 So I should stop strapping TNT to my chest? Rethink my plans about dousing myself with gasoline and striking a match on the steps of the CIRB? OK, you talked me out of it. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1V2Vgo Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Hey fellas, At the current rate of attrition within ACPA, ie. retirements, etc, how long will it take to rehire 320 or so laid off pilots? I heard about a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 The equipment bid already accounts for retirees to Jun 30/04. In total there are 127 retirements in 2004 so if we assume 1/2 of those are taken care of that leaves about 63 to go in 2004. After that it's: 2005 -- 127 2006 -- 140 So by the end of 2006 there are 330 retirements. I think that it is also worth noting that Milton's plan in Feb was to get the costs down and grow as a low cost carrier. Assuming we get through this CCAA proces we will be a low cost airline. Hopefully at that point Milton will go back to plan A and start growing the airline again so hopefully all those laid off in all departments will be back sooner rather than later. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.