Guest Hawkeye Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 << "Given Mr. Rovinescu's penchant for disregarding contracts and playing one group of pilots off another (which seems like a classic, CLC-prohibited whipsaw to me)" >> No disregard here at all. I think Mr. Rovinescu was fully aware of the AC contract that expires on April 1st 2004. Note, the contract signed between Jazz and the Restructuring Officer, Mr. Rovinescu, will be in effect on April 2nd 2004. If you want to talk about total disregard for a contract, all you have to do is look at what R. Milton did when he signed your (AC) TA days after Rovinescu had already signed the Jazz TA. ACPA having full knowledge of that fact makes your statement somewhat hypocritical. You keep putting your foot in your mouth Richard. Look on the bright side, probably tastes a whole lot better than Crow. From the far east of the Western World! Have a Great day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 No disregard here at all. I think Mr. Rovinescu was fully aware of the AC contract that expires on April 1st 2004. Note, the contract signed between Jazz and the Restructuring Officer, Mr. Rovinescu, will be in effect on April 2nd 2004. Hey Hawkeye, how about you go ask your ALPA Canada Labour Code law specialists about Collective agreements and what happens when they expire, maybe aska a question along the lines of "do the terms of a labour agreement expire on the day the CA expires or do they continue?" See what your high priced lawyers tell you, bet you're in for a surprise. Otherwise a company would just let the CA expire and then they could do what they want, couldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawkeye Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Of course the terms of the agreement don't expire when the date of the contract matures. I agree with you, however that was not my point. Neo was inclining that Mr. Rovinescu was ignoring the AC pilot contract while it (scope language) is still in effect til April 1st 2004. That contract technically ends on that date. Therefore, what the Restructuring Officer did in signing the Jazz TA on April 2nd, was perfectly legal. I checked that out with a Lawyer friend who is an expert on contract labor laws in this country. Furthermore, this lawyer doubts that R.Milton signature is really worth anything given that under CCAA, the CEO has little say in the restructuring of a Company. He went on to say that the appointed Restructuring Officer's signature would have more weight. Finally, the Creditors and Court appointed Monitors are the major role players and they pretty will pick most of their own cards and are dealt few. If AC Liquidates or is restructured, it will be under the terms of the Creditors ( No Scope up to 110 seats) not AC Management or any other Union. The Creditors will have the final say what they want in place if this airline is to continue. Contrary to what many believe, this is not a negotiation but simply what the employees are willing to sacrifice in terms of wage concessions and more flexible working rules. The Company needs these assurances urgently from all 9 unions so they can go forward. This hopefully will be enough to satisfy the Creditors appetite and convince them, that this will be their best hope of ever seeing a return on the enormous investments they have committed in Air Canada. This seniority issue from within ACPA now threatens a signed TA and will hold the company hostage from which they have no control over. Seniority under the present situation (CCAA) is not relative to what is required to get Air under AC wings again so it can fly another day. Hopefully, Lordon (CIRB) will address the seniority war and be able to pull a acceptable one for both groups from his hat! One family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Avcat Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Mitch, Don, Neo, Dagger, You guys are a class act and tell it the way it is. Your postings should be required reading for the rest of the Air Canada pilots, mechanics and ground staff. Believe me when I say this, Air Canada could very well be history if the rest of you guys don't quit your griping and pull together and make your company work. I know because I have been there. Unfortunately for me, as an ex-Canada 3000 pilot, I didn't believe for one minute that we would shutdown. Even after we all knew that we would be filing for bankruptcy under CCAA, we did not think for one minute that the company would shutdown. After all it was our livelihood. The problem was the creditors did not see it our way and they started siezing our assets - our aircraft, our bread and butter. Without those aircraft, Canada 3000 obviously could not earn it's living and survive. In the end, the BoD shut the company down to save their own bloody skin. Of course, they weren't thinking about the 4800 employees they put on the street at the stroke of a pen. GE Capital is a major creditor and believe them when they say they will sieze those assets. If that happens, the other creditors will follow suit and it may very well be all over. Think about that. Because it could happen to Air Canada. If you think, the government will step in, then you're all smoking dope. They didn't do it for Canada 3000, why should they do it for Air Canada. Now that Canada 3000 is but just a footnote in the history of aviation in this country, alot of the former pilots now work offshore. Like me, not because they wanted too, but because they were forced to. You take what you can get and you take the first job that comes up. Although, I don't pretend to know how to solve the state of the airline industry, I do know that 18 months of unemployment and the prospect of leaving Canada permanently is not a pleasant experience. 12 -18 months of unemployment is not fun. In fact, it almost bankrupted alot of us. Think about it!! And Best of luck to you all. Avcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 >> Therefore, what the Restructuring Officer did in signing the Jazz TA on April 2nd, was perfectly legal. I checked that out with a Lawyer friend who is an expert on contract labor laws in this country. << Absolutely it was legal ... and even checked it out by my own sources. Mr. Rovinescu has probably been working on this for years. I always wondered what he was really thinking about scaling the side of Mt. Rainier these last couple of summers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Bergen Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Hello Don: Still erudite - still literate - and still passionate about your beliefs. Excellent From the perspective of an old retired pilot, things seem to have gotten rather serious in the last two years. I cannot remember when the airline was in as much trouble as it is right now; I cannot remember when the feelings of the ordinary (as if any of us were ever ordinary) line pilot have run higher; to my knowledge there has never been as massive a layoff as the industry is facing - in short, things are a leetle tetchy right now - enough to justify that old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." It probably behooves everyone to remember that when the boat is sinking under you, concentrate on bailing rather than trying to sort out who was senior enough to steer when the boat hit the rocks. That has to be sorted out, but right now, grab a bucket and bail! Timing is everything! Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Hello Harvey, Pardon me for not introducing myselfe but I prefer to post anonimously. I would just like to say that it sure would be nice to have some of you "Old School" guys back again to rein in the momentum that has not stopped picking up velocity since the "243 Wing" days. When will it end???? GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Thanks for the info. RR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Phil, I'm back and able to pick up this thread, if you wish. I also understand that might be somewhat awkward for you, given your position in ACPA. We can leave it as is, if you prefer. If I seemed like I was questioning the integrity of ACPA's negotiating committee and the MEC, I wish you had asked for a clarification. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I may disagree with the strategy that our MEC chose since February 6th, I do not question their personal integrity vis-a-vis the choices they made, and certainly not with regard to the T.A. Likewise, in no way whatsoever do I question the integrity of those on the negotiating committee, who were given an exceedingly difficult assignment under a nightmare scenario. I've been meaning to send each negots committee member a note of thanks and support for their efforts. My apologies for not getting it to you sooner. My comments previously were only meant to highlight that our union is painted into a corner from which we have very few options to proceed, at least officially as a union. Once certain things happened, other things became all but inevitable. However, it's also my point that while as a union our COLLECTIVE hands may be tied in certain ways, INDIVIDUALLY we are still able to think for ourselves, and act on the matter as we think best. I urge all our members to do just that. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Predictability in this arena is boring. Nevertheless, I meant what I said. While I sometimes disagree with a poster's viewpoint, and sometimes that disagreement becomes heated, I almost always look for the opportunity to find some common ground. And as you see, we found some. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 ...and you say I'm subtle! Hah! I'm glad to see that "almost" qualifier there neo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Feet, crow, what's the difference! But seriously... You actually have a Lawyer friend?! And he's an expert on contract labor laws?! Really? So your friend is saying that an employer, while having a valid labor contract expiring on a future date 'x', is not going to run into problems by signing a contract with another union for the same work that begins on that future date 'x'? If that's what your friend is saying, your friend is the one who needs to adjust the placement of his feet. Have a great day. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Well, there's always the odd poster who is irredeemably belligerent. I'm thinking people like cp fa, Don Hudson, and my personal nemesis, neil in england. For incorrigibles like those, I pull out all the stops. But by and large, when the heat dies down, most of us remember our kindergarten teacher's instructions to play nicely. A disagreement shouldn't be the end of the world, after all. Hell, I'm told that poppies even grow in Flander's Field. That's gotta tell you something. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Nice to see a little prespective from someone who has "been there, done that". Rob Assaf, Jazz Player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Assaf Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Look people, lets get serious for ONE minute and then we can go back to the "woodstock" like atmosphere that exists here. NOBODY is about to send all the narrow bodies to Jazz, We might like to fantasize about is but the reality is probably the regional Jet "de jour" that the company can get a deal on from the manufacturer. Case closed. We will operate regional jets at the regional division of the corp know as AC. What a concept, a regional operating a regional a/c? It does not make sense for the MAINLINE to operate regional equipment at mainline costs anymore than it would make sense for the mainline to operate an widebody airbus fleet and give the regional the narrow body airbus fleet to operate. Two divisions sharing a common type again? Recipe for future bankruptcy. Vote down the T/A? Maybe the creditors fantasize about regional costs for a mainline operation that they own in an equity for debt swap? You roll the dice and make your own call. Back to the concert but first a few announcements, "there's some bad s**t going around on the forum, if it starts to make sense to you, please report to the medical tent immediataly!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.