neo (for the last time, folks)

[buzz]

Neo, I will make this my last post until I can fix this damn SQL fault, so I'll be as brief as I can (and please don't pose me any more questions, O. K?)

You are an eloquent and persuasive writer, but you really must stop inferring what other people are saying, much along the lines of the same admonishment you gave me. Note that I said that a Keller result that included a contributing retirement clause was not impossible. That is not to say that I think it will be there, or is even remotely likely. I have no idea, and won't go there.

I will, however, vote in favor of the T/A irregardless of the timing of the release of the Keller award, or it's contents. I like my job, the seniority thing will sort itself out eventually, and I'm not really keen on persuing employment in aviation in Botswana, or working the night-shift at 7-11.

So, in a nutshell, NO I don't agree with you.

Regards,

buzz

[Guest neo]

Well, I'm sorry we won't be hearing from you shortly, because you really should be held to task over your comments.

It's you that's being disingenuous, buzz. I say that you believe the Keller Award could see all CAIL retirements go to CAIL pilots. You say, "No I don't, I believe that it's not impossible!" Give me a break. Read my comments AGAIN, buzz. I said not one word about whether you believed it to be the case, or even likely. Only that you believe it to be possible. Read the post with your mind, not your bias!

Further to that, I asked you to comment on the simple, straightforward issue: "...unless you would vote for the T.A. regardless of how bad its consequences might be, you would be foolish to vote for it without knowing what's in the Keller Award." I asked you to generalize, buzz, not try to make your personal preference the answer to the question.

So for any interested party willing to consider the question honestly, I ask the question again:

Unless you would vote for the ACPA T.A. regardless of how bad the consequences were for you, why would you vote for it without seeing the Keller Award first?

neo

[B75/76]

"So for any interested party willing to consider the question honestly, I ask the question again:

Unless you would vote for the ACPA T.A. regardless of how bad the consequences were for you, why would you vote for it without seeing the Keller Award first?"

As someone not involved it seems simple to me. Of course, maybe I'm just simple! ;-)

The TA and Keller are two separate and distinct issues. Keller isn't going to change because of how you vote on the TA. If AC were not in CCAA you would be without a TA to vote on and the Keller Award would still be coming.

What would you do then? Quit? Start your own legal action? Accept it? You still have those options. What if you vote down the TA, to spite Keller, and find out later it isn't as bad as you feared it would be?

To me it sounds like fighting two fronts in a war and intentionally losing one because you think you might lose the other. Ends up being a total loss. I can't see it unless you are dead certain liquidation is not a possibility and maybe not even then.

[Guest Virtual]

"Why would you vote for the TA without knowing the results of the Keller Award?"

.....For the same reasons the ACPA MEC did??!

[Guest neo]

"The TA and Keller are two separate and distinct issues."

The TA and Keller are two separate issues JOINTLY having a huge impact on the consequences to our membership. Do you not understand this? The effects the T.A. has on each member is directly related to their seniority. If your seniority changes after the fact, so does the effect of the T.A.

For example, if you give the T.A. a 'yes' vote now thinking that you will get a 15% pay cut, a Keller Award that negatively affects your seniority could mean that you get a 50% pay cut instead. Or you could think that a 15% pay cut is in the offing, and then find yourself on the street, with no pay at all!

What rational person would voluntarily accept a situation like that?!

For any ACPA member, REGARDLESS of your former affiliation, to vote on the T.A. without knowing the Keller Award is to vote blindly on the T.A.'s consequences to yourself and your colleagues.

neo

[Guest Virtual]

So...why did the MEC? Are you saying they're

not rational? Perhaps how you define 'rational' depends on which side of the issue you're on.

[Guest neo]

Now, think about this very carefully Virtual. The issues are subtle, but they are crucial.

The ACPA Negotiating Committee did not have any choice but to recommend the Tentative Agreement. The timing of the negotiations was completely out of their hands, and once the court-monitored and court-run negotiations had reached a certain point, the ACPA Negotiating Committee had no alternative but to say, "Here it is..." to the membership. Furthermore, the MEC and the Negotiating Committee MUST conduct their business on behalf of ALL union members, and not make decisions that favor any particular group that make up that membership.

Are you seeing the situation now? Or would you like further explanation?

neo

[buzz]

My SQL isn't fixed, but I was so choked I had to run over to my neighbour and borrow his machine.

Neo, as you well know, you can say alot with how you structure your wording that can say more than the text itself. so, read this text and apply it to your original question: "...do believe that to be accurate information."

No, your information is not accurate. It's crap. How's that for clarity?

What really shows where you're coming from is the next para. You asked for a comment on a simple, straight forward issue, and I gave a simple and straight forward answer. NO. But to insinuate that my answer is dishonest because it doesn't agree with your position is

infuriating.

I already went through a merger with you guys that had fairly negative consequences , and didn't even book off sick. You, on the other hand, are advocating an absolute scortched earth policy even though you don't know what Keller is going to hand down. You're the most prolific poster on this forum from what I've seen, and your keyboard offal reeks of the work of a fifth columnist from the new OAC Hitler Youth. Hopefully, for the sake of the survival of this Company, there's not too many like you.

Pretty clear now, huh?

buzz

[Seeker]

Buzz - take my advice and just ignore the guy. Maybe he'll go away. I often check in to the forum to see what's new after a day or two away and find he's involved in every thread! Talk about an inflated sense of self worth. And then if you should happen to make a legitimate point contrary to his he'll either blow you off with a "whatever you say, dude" or pore through your posting to find one word or phrase upon which to hang a reply, never addressing the main point. Not worth the effort I say.

seeker

[Guest Virtual]

Yes, I believe I do. The ACPA negotiating committee had a job to do ... conducting the TA on behalf of all union members....neither favouring the former Cdn or original AC. This is the same way I will decide to vote - on how this will affect those/all in my union, as well as those in the other eight unions. My little 'patch' of earth is only 1/40 000 of the whole plot/picture. However, when the Keller Award comes out, then I believe that all the legal processes and resources can/should take place to find out where in the line-up my little 'patch' will end up. (Unfortunately for me, it seems to be reversing a bit.) As a result, it will also only be up to me to decide if I'm going to let that 'patch' be overrun with weeds (anger/resentment) or get it ready to grow into something worthwhile. I like to hope that I will choose the latter.

[B75/76]

The problem is still that they are separate issues. Yes, they both may have dramatic effects on one's job situation. Maybe even worse collectively. The fact is voting 'no' to one doesn't change the other.

So vote on the TA in isolation accordingly. Later when Keller comes out, if one can't live with it, fight it or quit and move on. Same end result, just a different route to get there.

Otherwise, one is voting on an issue negotiated with the company, intending to defeat another issue from an outside influence. Poor strategy in my opinion.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Keller may have significant consequences, just the methodology you are proposing to fight it.

[hollywud]

Gentlemen,

I will repost my previous thoughts - since we are on the subject.

"MCDU, I agree the two are completely separate issues, however there seems to be several posters on this forum that are attempting to link the two by claiming that the Keller award must meet their ‘career expectations’ and contain no ‘windfall gains’ before they will give their thumbs up to the TA. The TA is ready now; fellow employees are looking at you to do the right thing - Help save the Company."

Neo, rational minds here on the forum seem to disagree with your opinion that one must review the the Keller award before voting on the TA. 'Live to fight another day seems to be a common goal among your fellow ACPA group and those of your fellow employees. Yet what still confounds me is your belief that this is still negotiations and that time is on your side. This to me is not rational. Like I said in my previous post:

"...There will likely be an outcome that you don’t like; a) Company closure, or Seniority displacement. These are the sad facts that occur when a Company goes bankrupt, or hopefully, emerge from bankruptcy. It is beyond your control, the control of the ex-CAI, or the JAZZ pilots. You are all on the same side believe it or not. Remember that when the dust settles and you are flying with the guy next to you, what ever seat that may be in."

Colin Forrest

[Guest neo]

No doubt about it, buzz, I (and I'm sure most of the forum) has a pretty clear picture of you now. Hope you washed off your neighbour's computer after all that.

Richard Roskell

[Guest Bat]

Hey Buzz;

You got me stumped here. What does "irregardless" mean?

Bat

[Guest Bat]

Buzz:

The Hitler bit is a tad harsh. While I do not advocate Neo's approach, or share his opinions, this is a free country, and you're free not to read his posts.

Most of the pilots will look at the details of the TA and how we arrived there. Now as pi$$ed off as it makes me and many others to stomach an assault of such magnitude, I believe that their are enough sensible folks out there to have this $hit float through. A reduced paycheque is better than none! You can still pay the bills while you're polishing your resume.

Keller is a distinct issue. If you/I/anyone cannot live with the final outcome (which may not be Keller, but from the Supreme Court before we're done), then you proceed as above.

The only thing for sure is that we are buying plenty of Kashmir overcoats and BMWs that we will neither wear nor drive.

That's all for now.

Bat

[Guest Bat]

Buzz:

The Hitler bit is a tad harsh. While I do not advocate Neo's approach, or share his opinions, this is a free country, and you're free not to read his posts.

Most of the pilots will look at the details of the TA and how we arrived there. Now as pi$$ed off as it makes me and many others to stomach an assault of such magnitude, I believe that there are enough sensible folks out there to have this $hit float through. A reduced paycheque is better than none! You can still pay the bills while you're polishing your resume.

Keller is a distinct issue. If you/I/anyone cannot live with the final outcome (which may not be Keller, but from the Supreme Court before we're done), then you proceed as above.

The only thing for sure is that we are buying plenty of Kashmir overcoats and BMWs that we will neither wear nor drive.

That's all for now.

Bat

[Don Hudson]

Buzz;

Re ". . . your keyboard offal reeks of the work of a fifth columnist from the new OAC Hitler Youth."

That is precisely the kind of commentary which makes it easy to dismiss as polemicist. Neo has raised what are clearly some controversial and, for some, awkward discussion points. Rather than resort to emotivism, why not engage the discussion on point?

Many have offered commentary based upon "neo" (who), and have avoided the "what-if" question, "ridiculous" though it may appear to some. Whether some like it or not, these are serious career issues which are critical to those involved. Time will tell us all whether the discussion was appropriate or not. Choosing to engage means "discussing", not dismissing. After all, one can simply dismiss by remaining silent and moving on. Clearly, the issue has meaning for many.

Regards,

Don

[Guest Goggles]

"What rational person would voluntarily accept a situation like that?!"

It's precisely a matter of rationality. We vote yes, we stick around. We vote no, we wind up on the street with nothing. What rational person would scuttle everything on a temper tantrum?... that's what _I_ ask.

Maybe you can't accept a situation like that, but there is nothing you can do about it. We got $crewed and that's the end of it. You don't accept the TA and Keller? your alternative is good-bye.

Goggles

[Guest neo]

Then WHY HAVE A VOTE AT ALL, Goggles? Why not just let the courts and the monitors tell us what we're going to get?

What you're telling me is that you'd vote 'yes' no matter how despicable the consequences might be to you and your colleagues. Far from persuading me that you have a valid point of view, I'm more convinced than ever that it has no rational basis at all. It's simply self-preservation in panic mode!

Here, IN EFFECT, is what you and your colleagues are being offered:

"Your pay cut may be 15%, or it may be 30%, or it maybe 50%, or it may be 60%, or you may get a 100% pay cut and be on the street. For those of you who get to stick around, you may even get a raise. And we can't tell you who is going to be affected in each way. It's a total crap shoot at this time. You vote yes on this offer, you take your chances."

Now, Goggles. You tell me what union employee group, (or management employee group for that matter) would have accepted such a offer? Their union leadership would have been stoned alive if they'd brought that to the membership. Yet you, and many of my colleagues, tell me that this is precisely what I must accept. It's your choice to be raped in that fashion if you wish, but at least have the decency to support those who are willing to fight such an unjust outcome.

Richard Roskell

[Guest neo]

Hi hollywud,

You might have an easier time understanding my position if you stopped thinking things about it that I haven't said.

"Yet what still confounds me is your belief that this is still negotiations and that time is on your side."

I have never said anything of the sort, nor have I intimated as such. Time is most definitely our worst enemy right now, both as a union and as a corporation. I made no comment whatsoever about how we were still in negotiations; although now that you raise the point, until a deal is signed, negotiations can still take place. That's just the way it is, hollywud, it's got nothing to do with what I believe.

I've repeated almost ad nauseum, but I'll repeat it again:

If you would vote for a Tentative Agreement without knowing what the consequences will be to you and your family... whether you'll be getting a raise, a 15%, a 30%, a 50%, a 60% or a 100% pay cut and be on the street with no job at all, then that is your prerogative. It's your vote and your right to do with it as you choose.

But in the name of all that's reasonable in this world, are you not able to grant that there are others who DO want to know what the consequences will be to them and their families before they vote? Can you not find even that little respect for democracy that you would expect that your colleagues must blindly accept such negative consequences? That they must vote having no idea whether they and their families will be without any income whatsoever in the near future?

If you wish to vote with no way of knowing what the consequences of your vote will be to you and your family, then that's your choice. But that situation is unacceptable to some reasonable-minded people, myself among them.

Richard Roskell

[Guest neo]

The ACPA MEC has no choice, no alternative but to recommend acceptance of the T.A., Virtual. The court-administered negotiations leading to the T.A. were done in a time frame that our MEC had no control over whatsoever. They were legally required to negotiate, and they were legally required to do it within a time of the court's choosing. Once the negotiations were complete (at the time prescribed by the court) the ACPA MEC had no choice but to recommend acceptance. There are no acceptable legal alternatives to any of the things they did to that point.

The ACPA MEC could have hypothetically had advanced knowledge that the Keller Award end-tailed every former Air Canada pilot to those from CAIL, and they could still have done nothing differently about the T.A. and it's recommendation!

neo

[Guest neo]

Hi Virtual,

On re-reading my previous post to you, I realize it could have sounded condescending, and I apologize if that's how it came across. It wasn't my intention.

"This is the same way I will decide to vote - on how this will affect those/all in my union..."

That's precisely the point, Virtual. You do not know how it's going to affect either yourself (assuming you're not a Merger Committee member) or any of your colleagues. YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING! Are all the pilots taking a 15% pay cut, other than those who are laid off who take a 100% cut. Or will some be taking 15%, some getting a raise, and some taking 30%, 50% and more?

You have never been presented with a Tentative Agreement like this before. With every other T.A., each pilot can look at it and say: "This is what it means to me and my family." With this T.A., almost no one can. And for many, many pilots the range of possibilities within that uncertainty is HUGE!

I say again: anyone who wishes to vote 'yes' under circumstances like that is free to do as they wish. At the same time, I expect all such members to do the right thing and support their colleagues who DO NOT accept those terms. Wanting to know what you're getting into before you vote is a completely reasonable choice to make.

Richard Roskell

[Don Hudson]

Neo;

You have it precisely.

While much has changed since the company's first "Needs" list, (I will keep my counsel on that document as others in more offical, non-AC/non-ACPA positions have commented on it), work on the contractual wording is what has gone on since that Saturday night. Most are very clear on the "alternatives", which have been discussed here and elsewhere to exhaustive lengths.

Don

Don

[sustainable]

Ricardo, since we are deep into hypotheticals here, lets perform an experiment. Theoretically speaking, how should an original AC pilot that flowed through from Air BC in 1997 or 1998 with a MM type seniority number around 2400 of 3400 vote on the TA if, for instance, the Keller award changed his/her number to 2800 of 3400?

Sus

[Guest Virtual]

I certainly did not take your answer as being

(in any way) condescending .... and appreciate

someone who can reply to a differing opinion in a discussion form vs a slagfest. As an aside, in your opinion do you see the votes 'splitting' along the 'premerger' lines due to what's been hinted/said in the Keller Award?