Guest bug smasher Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 How did you boys deal with Senority when merging with EPA ,CP, PW, Nordair, And I think there was one more.?? Was it DOH or were some of you also dealt with unfairly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qtip Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 I know one thing for sure, the CRA pilots went on the bottom of the list when they started at Canadian because that's what was good for the mainline guys. All you mainliners started this crap and it's just starting to cause a few sleepless nights. Jazz merged 4 silos with similar equipment DOH in about 6 months time. Just a suggestion but don't you think it's time to go forward gang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest long keel Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 DOH is a simple solution in a staus pay airline. AC/CAIL that was not the case. Senority determines ones pay beyond the left seat / right seat method Jazz uses. It worked well for you, I'm glad. At AC with demographics much different than CAIL, and CAIL having a list where connector were given there service date as far back as 1990, and AC connectors received there simple start date at AC, made a simple DOH solution impossible. It would cause existing A320 Captains to lose their seats to a new hire DC10 second officer. Both Mitchnik, Lordon, and Keller recognized this fact. Perhaps you should give it consideration as well. The Chairperson of the CIRB stated it will not be DOH. There is a reason. It would dovetail 55% of OAC pilots behind all of the OCP. My hope is that we can get something that resembles a straight percentage merger. Scrap the fences, and focus on building a great airline from the best both sides have to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 DOH is of course a rather simple method and has the appearance of being fair. However, the practical meaning of DOH is different between the former CAI and AC pilots and I think this should be addressed. The pilots at AC prior to the merger were all original AC seniority pilots. This is not the case at CAI. Pilots at CAI were given seniority dates from former airlines as the group merged with several airlines along the way. Since AC merged with CAI and not the other airlines, could they not simply use the DOH into CAI? Also, CPA had a nasty habit of recruiting 60 pilots and hiring 12 but giving seniority numbers to all 60. The 48 would then go and drive a cab for 2-3 years waiting for a course. Is this accrued time fair? In summary I think DOH (with pay) with the parent company would be a better way to go. IMHO cpdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 FYI, The merger at Jazz was completed before the collective agreement was ratified. None of the former airlines CRA ,ANO,AON or ABC were on status pay systems. Everyone in this case realized that DOH was the most sensible way to go in all fairness. When will the "NHL" boys figure it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 100 Above Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 The demographics are just too far apart to even think that DOH could work in the NHL, as you call it. Percentile is the only true way of dealing with this issue. I said this day 1 and I say it now. 95 % of the pilots on both lists would maintain if not improve in some cases, their equipment, hence pay and career expectations ( or does this exist anymore ). Also the flowthrough agreements with both sides would not even come into play. Whatever date was given to each pilot does not matter because it is each pilot's relative position at their respective carrier that determines where he/she will fit in the new common list. I think that alot of lawyers have gotten rich from taking an easy solve and made it into a dog's breakfast. I think that it is now a crap shoot how this could go. Closer to Keller, or closer to Mitchnik. Why don't we just split it down the middle, which mirrors percentile, and call it a day.. It seems we just start getting along in the cockpits and on layovers, then something happens to turn up the flame again. For God's sake, lets finish this thing now, once and for all, then move on with our careers, what's left of them anyways. 100 Above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 No offence but since Keller is still in force and has not been deemed illegal, I'd say it would be much closer to Keller. Furthermore, it amazes me how it has become so imperative to find a negotiated solution now that Keller is out. Under Mitchnick, many pilots were placed BOTL and no one gave a rats ass. Additionally, the only real solution is a compromise, mid way between DOH and percentile. Hello Keller! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAT3DUAL Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Split down the middle, and both sides would be PO'ed. Now isn't that basics of a good merger, when both sides are PO'ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Right on the money!! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hello Dick That's the problem with negotiations. As soon as one side comes up with a compromise the other side uses that as a basis between their position and the new compromise. As AC had more wide bodies and more 320s vs 737/DC9s the CDN group would benefit immediately from a percentile merge, and over time as CDN has proportionally more retirements over the next few years the OAC group will gain some of that back. No windfall gains or losses. By the way, many of us advocated this as a solution pre Mitchnik. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 100 Above Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Greg, I think that both sides will continue to have " Dick's ", no pun intended, but that is why the pilots en masse should solve this, of course via their respective merger commitees. Bottom line, the blue guys will have guys who will always believe that Keller is gospel as will OAC's thinking that MM was gospel. BUT, to most pilots other than the hard liners, a compromise would be more than welcome. 100 Above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Just because you don't like my response, there's no need to be insulting. If you want a true ratio, you need to balance the playing field by making considerations for the fact that CRA operated 40+ F28's that under AC's model would be available on the CAIL list to balance out the ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Except that you would have to either exclude the positions that were on the RJ, or include the positions that were on the F28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Terminated (I hope you weren't) Can you answer a question for me. Were all the CRA flow through pilots shown in the positions for the EAB 35 bid? It seems to me to make sense to use the number of positins on that bid and the number of positions on the AC 00-01 bid to get the number of positions to make up the ratio that would bring about a percentile merge. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 100 Above Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 But DD, As I said, no pun intended, but I guess you missed that part. Anyhow, at what point do you stop adding aircraft types to the pot. Are we to include the B727's too on the AC side, NO. The RJ's were and can be verified, on the Bid or as you call it EAB, prior to the merger, unlike the F28s that were not on EAB 35 unless I am blind. Since the date was established for the merge , that being Oct 17, 2000, then your last EAB had no reflection of this type on it, whereas the RJ was on 00-01, and was an integral part of our mid 1990's expansion. Somewhere, we MUST draw the line. I understand that by including the F28s, you protect the CRA guys but that is not fair to the OACs from 1995 on. Use what has been agreed upon, i.e. Merger Date, and Fleet size and types, then move from there. Don't introduce new ingredients because this recipe will never work. Fair is Fair DD. 100 Above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Why? The two companies were of differing size, relative percentage is advantage CP. The RJs were operated at the mainline[corporate decision, pre MM, pre Picher] the F28s were not[corporate decision and correct me if I'm wrong, due exclusively to the relaxation of CAI scope, a decision the pilots there [CAI] ratified. Both sides have had flow through issues, ACs were settled - against. just wondering cheers dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Greg, No, not terminated (at least not yet). And I can't help you with what positions were shown on what bid, I'm from the other AC airline. You seemed to be saying that because of a greater # of widebody aircraft at AC, that should be considered in a ratio type of scenario. I was just pointing out that the RJ is an even more obvious example of an incongruity between the 2 lists. I would be surprised if anyone that was eligible for the flowthrough, but was still at CRA, was shown on an equipment bid. For the record, I am on the side of a percentile/ratio type merge, perhaps with some very general type of flying comparisons. Maybe widebody, narrow body, and small jet. Have a great day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jammed Balls Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Greg: I’ve read your postings here and on Ezboard for sometime, and I appreciate your frankness, and your ability to rise above the flaming so often attached to this topic. I’ve read your idea of a simple solution, straight line ratio…everyone from their previous ‘tribe’ integrated at their respective tribal ratios. The question I pose to you, is how would you propose to ‘tweak’ this moving solution forward? I’m OCP… would have retired at 3.4% at CP, and under Keller at 3.7%… the OAC ahead of me would have retired at 4.6% (OAC), and will now at 3.9% (under Keller)… Under the former Mitchnick list the guys bracketing me would have retired 97% improved from the award, in fact at their OAC numbers, because there were no OCP left at the time… where in my case I’d have moved up about 40% to about 18% vrs 3.4% at CP… How would you suggest that straight-line percentage integration address ‘fairness’ moving forward? How would you handle the situation I describe… career progression of one side somewhat slowed, but essentially intact, whereas the other side has no where near the same opportunity as they would have had at CAIL? Remember that the mandate of both MM and Keller was to provide fairness full spectrum, not just a snapshot version but also the ‘moving picture’ version of fairness. If you have any ideas regarding this I’d really appreciate hearing them. ~JB, very close to you in years served at my Tribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jammed Balls Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Greg: I’ve read your postings here and on Ezboard for sometime, and I appreciate your frankness, and your ability to rise above the flaming so often attached to this topic. I’ve read your idea of a simple solution, straight line ratio…everyone from their previous ‘tribe’ integrated at their respective tribal ratios. The question I pose to you, is how would you propose to ‘tweak’ this moving solution forward? I’m OCP… would have retired at 3.4% at CP, and under Keller at 3.7%… the OAC ahead of me would have retired at 4.6%(AC prior to merger), and will now at 3.9% (under Keller)… Under the former Mitchnick list the guys bracketing me would have retired 97% improved from the award, in fact at their OAC numbers, because there were no OCP, senior to them, left at the time… where in my case I’d have moved up about 40% to about 18% vrs 3.4% at CP… How would you suggest that straight-line percentage integration address ‘fairness’ moving forward? How would you handle the situation I describe… career progression of one side somewhat slowed, but essentially intact, whereas the other side has no where near the same opportunity as they would have had at CAIL? Remember that the mandate of both MM and Keller was to provide fairness full spectrum, not just a snapshot version but also the ‘moving picture’ version of fairness. If you have any ideas regarding this I’d really appreciate hearing them. ~JB, very close to you in years served at my Tribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Terminated, (glad to hear you're not. ) I would think that the 340's and the greater number of 767s plus the proportioanlly greater number of 320's would more than make up for the RJs. If you throw in the earlier retirement dates at CDN I think the whole thing comes out somewhere near equal. I'd sure like to see us get on with this and just have it done. Happy Canada Day Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi JB Somebody showed me on a Keller list the other day that I went from about 2.5% to 3.7% (I think) at retirement. At any rate my number pre merge would have been 77, under Mitchnik it was 97, and under Keller it is 126. I think that by the numbers that you have given me you likely would have retired on the 767 if CDN had continued on the way it was. Now presumably you will retire on the 340. My point is, your retirement percentage is only meaningful when you also take into account the fleet of the company that you're working for. I am repeating myself hear but I'll try it again. I believe that the OCP group gains more at the time of a percentile merge because of the differences between the CDN fleet and the AC fleet in Oct 2000. CDN had 1 more 747, but AC had a whole fleet of 340s as well as proportionally more 767s. At the same time we had a much greater number of A320s than did CDN when compared to the 737s and DC9s. I believe AC had 10 RJs which would favour the OAC group, but on balance I would have to say that the CDN group would come out ahead when you look at the overall fleet mix. I agree that you are correct when you say that the CDN group is older, and through to 2008 there are more retirements coming from the CDN side than there are from the OAC group. I'm suggesting that the benefit that comes to the OCP pilots initially because of the fleet mix will be balanced off later by the benefit that accrues to the OAC group because of retirements. I don't have a spreadsheet to support this, but to me it just seems to make sense. No list can be perfectly fair to every individual, so we have to come up with something that is fair to each group. I think that a percentile merge comes closer to that than any other proposal. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 AC, RJ's at mainline CDN, RJ's at CRA The AC list is skewed in favour of a ratio since it matches 37 drivers with RJ drivers. I'm sorry if you can't see it but that's how I see a straight ratio as unfair unless provisions are made for this disparity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi Again Dick You are right, but it also matches 737 drivers with A320 drivers and 767 drivers with A340 drivers. I believe that those differences far exceed the disparity caused by the RJ. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jammed Balls Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 Greg: Interesting that you mention more retirements at CAIL till 2008... thats my exit year, and as of the end of 2008 40% of the original CAIL group arbitrated by MM will have retired... FWIW at CAIL I would have made senior DC10, or quite possibly jr 47... No point in taking this much farther though because we both know what happens when pilots do that. All I can say is that the focus point for defining " fairness " is quite different from each tribe’s perspective. Because of these optics, the chance of ever resolving this by ourselves (even amongst two old farts here), or even agreeing on which areas in Keller need review (as Lordon requested last week), is nil to zero. All we can 'reasonably' hope for is that it is resolved soon, and that AC can rise out of CCAA... Growth (not likely), and financial stability would do wonders. It would help move us all forward,and out the door early in my case, PLEASE!!! There is no way to merge two groups in a downturn without some people getting badly burned. No arbitration in a downturn will ever be viewed as being fair, and we will just have to accept this as fact of life. Cheers, ~JB... looking for a 'reduced sentence' for good behavior. What a silly career eh?... Next time I’ll think I’ll join the Government Tribe. I think that a career as a Privacy commissioner could be very fulfilling eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 You're right JB, but I have a hunch that just maybe we could resolve this over a couple of cool ones. Let's hope our teams can come to an agreement without any more acrimony. You know I'll bet there isn't one guy on our current list that wasn't either on squadron, in school or bush flying with someone from the other tribe before they got on with a major. Enjoy Canada Day Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.