Guest Peanuts Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Read my posting. I was using an example !!So the not so smart ones here can understand it ! EVERY group had to come up with a percentage in savings. It WAS relevent to the amount of members in that group. God, I am repeating myself. Just go back and READ the posting carefully. I am not cutting down anyone, simply trying to explain how it worked, perhaps I need to explain it better for you .....later !!!much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 >"We were all told that every group had to save a certain %. ACPA had to figure out where the % was to come from." I think the problem we had with is the total #'s are not fair. Less than 10% of the work force takes almost 25% of the hit. Approx. 3400 pilots and approx. 40000 employees. 200+ million of the total 1.1 Billion. As to some of your other remarks. (*&^*^$^%#%$@#^%$^%$#^#^&^%&^%&(*&*&%&$^)(^^$#%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 >"We were all told that every group had to save a certain %. ACPA had to figure out where the % was to come from." I think the problem we had with is the total #'s are not fair. Less than 10% of the work force takes almost 25% of the hit. Approx. 3400 pilots and approx. 40000 employees. 200+ million of the total 1.1 Billion. As to some of your other remarks. (*&^*^$^%#%$@#^%$^%$#^#^&^%&^%&(*&*&%&$^)(^^$#%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1V2Vgo Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Absolutely, 87% in favour is big, But with all of the missed deadlines, posturing, and death defying brinkmanship, beyond the 11th hour, I would venture a guess that your, or my job were not at the very core of the issue. This very group is now challenging binding arbitration outcome, one that they agreed to in advance. One NO vote supporter even said he would rather take his chances with Judge Farley. Beautiful, I am sure the good judge has already forgotten the warm welcome that ACPA rolled out when his appointment was announced, or was it Justice Winkler that was unfit to hear the case, or both? Notice a pattern here?? For some, this is like childbirth. After all of the pain, suffering, blood and gore, a few days later, everything is fine!!?? I must still be pregnant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juliette Delta Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Wow...you must feel very secure in you ignorance....I can't believe that you would even post such complete crap as saying Jazz prostituted themselves for the sake of undercutting you. Last time I looked (this morning) Jazz gets paid for all the work they do and all the training they do. Jazz also suffers from wage cuts, like all othe groups, but nowhere in the Jazz agreements has the "undercutting" taken place. No sir, it is you and your pathetically near sighted self rightous union leaders who have agreed by a vote of 87% to work for free, as well as taking a healthy run at undercutting Jazz and all the work it does, thereby driving the industry standards down. You and your group are the only ones responsible for the state of your job and career, and it is shamefull that you have made Canadian professional aviation the joke it is globally. I would suggest that you put at least the same effort into educating yourself regarding the agreement your union has as you do in these posts, and maybe you will sound somewhat less moronic the next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 What % of the total labour cost is used up by that same 10% of the employees?? I think you'll find that the cost for the pilots equals approx 25% of the total, so it stands to reason that 25% of the savings should come from them. The numbers can be skewed every which way, depending on the point you wish to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 ty Unfortunatly, I can not be bothered to continue this silly conversation with you ! bye bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V1V2Vgo Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Hey Deejay, Wipe the foam off your keyboard, take a deep breath, and take an honest, objective look at history. Fiscal responsibility is the order of the day. Your cost structure is not allowing the operation to stay afloat. Way back when the RJ's were headed to the Regionals, (catch the like meaning of those two terms) ACPA snatched them, because they could, vowing to fly for the same rate as the regional pilots. Next contract, a huge raise!... and you would accuse the regional pilots of prostituting themselves? I guess that would make you a pimp, living off the avails of prostitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qtip Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Total debt at AC around 13,000,000,000 Total debt at AC Jazz 88,000,000 I think for the numbers here Jazz employees did more than their fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floatrr Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Firstly, If you took a $80,000 paycut... my guess is that you would have been earning somewhere in the high 200K/annum range?? Don't expect a whole lot of sympathy if you are still earning in the high 100K/annum range after your paycut. Some folks that fly airplanes may never earn as much! ie)JAZZ pilots. Second, don't give me that crap about being the almighty mainline pilot and how you paid your dues blah,blah, blah! Because pilots at other companies have paid theirs too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mareli Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Yes, they are challenging the last arbitration but the original Mitchnick arbitration was supposed to be "binding" as well. Keller is so unfair that I'm glad we live in a country that can see something grossly unfair and change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 " Keller is so unfair that I'm glad we live in a country that can see something grossly unfair and change it. " I think the truely great thing is you can have this opinion and express it freely On the other hand, there are those who would say the exact opposite, and be just as right as you are. You can't expect to have anyone see your point of view, if you're unwilling to look at their's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mareli Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 What makes you think that I haven't looked at other points of view and came to my conclusion by reading all the facts. I must be surviving through law school somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 No problem with that. See Ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 "How about threatenning to vote NO to the TA unless Lorden reviews the Keller paper?" Is that what really happened Sherlock, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 ”There is a group of employees at AC that don't care about the health of the company or the health of their fellow employees, and you're thanking them for not killing you all? Pathetic. What all you people should be doing is telling them that if they feel the need to try to force the company into the sewer in the future, then you will encourage your union and all the other unions in the mix to start speaking out about the single minded self serving tactic of ACPA. Only shows just how ignorant you are of the relationship between ACPA and AC. Especially ignorant about the multitude of initiatives the two have embarked on in past in order to strengthen the collective platform. Think I’m full of crap? Enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jazzplayer Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 "as an outsider I view it's (ACPA's) dealing with otherwith other pilot groups as unfair at best" There you have it folks, the jury is out. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 I based my assumption on "see something grossly unfair". How had you prefexed your statement with "In my opinion" or "From my point of view" then I wouldn't have responded. But because you made a definitive statement, I wrongly assumed that you hadn't weighed each arguement from an unbiased point of view. And for that I appologize. From your post I wil once again make an assumption,...you're in law school... given that, I would like to ask a question.... Do you believe, that anyone personaly involved in the seniority issue, is qualified, to determine what's fair and what isn't??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jazzplayer Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Yes, I think your full of crap. "strengthen the collective platform" What does that mean? Did you guys join the Borg? Re: the relationship between ACPA and AC. I have heard that AC management really enjoy dealing with you guys. They think you are professional and usually do what is in the best interest of your company almost to the point of benevolent philanthropy. LOL. "multitude of initiatives" Name one. Enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Like the line in the song Dragon "people believe what they want to believe" I called QR77 open line show to enlighten them that we not "voting no" nor were we instructed to vote no and in fact all that happened was the yes votes were delayed till after the Lordon hearing. That's not to say that there weren't many AC pilots personally threatening to vote no "unless", but it sure wasn't ACPA policy nor was it advocated by the MEC or an ACPA offical. I can deal with it but I guess some can't CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 It is indeed unfortunate that you would choose to post the above which, to the informed, makes you look truly, like a dolt! The Mitchnik protocol expressley included the right to A) petition the CIRB for reconsideration, Judicial Review, and C) file with the Federal Court of Appeal and of course, failing that, to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada to be heard. The Keller protocol expressly forbid petitioning the CIRB for reconsideration allowing parties only to apply for a Judicial Review and the Federal Court of Appeal. By now, all ACPA members are acuetly aware of the differences between the protocols. Notwithstanding either protocol, The Chair of the CIRB gets final approval of any arbitrated award and in this case, has choosen to subject the award to a "limited review." You may read into that whatever you wish however without a direct line into Lordon's brain, your opinion is about as useful as the steaming pile of crud you posted. Your lack of knowledge of the details of either protocol can only lead to the conclusion that you are an uninformed outsider to the process with no real stake in the outcome and that you are posting here to bloat your negligble self-esteem. Go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 It is indeed unfortunate that you would choose to post the above which, to the informed, makes you look truly, like a dolt! The Mitchnik protocol expressley included the right to A) petition the CIRB for reconsideration, Judicial Review, and C) file with the Federal Court of Appeal and of course, failing that, to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada to be heard. The Keller protocol expressly forbid petitioning the CIRB for reconsideration allowing parties only to apply for a Judicial Review and the Federal Court of Appeal. By now, all ACPA members are acuetly aware of the differences between the protocols. Notwithstanding either protocol, The Chair of the CIRB gets final approval of any arbitrated award and in this case, has choosen to subject the award to a "limited review." You may read into that whatever you wish however without a direct line into Lordon's brain, your opinion is about as useful as the steaming pile of crud you posted. Your lack of knowledge of the details of either protocol can only lead to the conclusion that you are an uninformed outsider to the process with no real stake in the outcome and that you are posting here to bloat your negligble self-esteem. Go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 "Law School" mareli, that's rich! It is indeed unfortunate that you would choose to post the above which, to the informed, makes you look truly, like a dolt! Not exactly law school material. Of course any dolt could do five minutes of research and an hour's worth of reading to get some background information with which to post a reasonably intelligent response. The Mitchnik protocol expressley included the right to A) petition the CIRB for reconsideration, Judicial Review, and C) file with the Federal Court of Appeal and of course, failing that, to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada to be heard. The Keller protocol expressly forbid petitioning the CIRB for reconsideration allowing parties only to apply for a Judicial Review and the Federal Court of Appeal. By now, all ACPA members are acuetly aware of the differences between the protocols. Notwithstanding either protocol, The Chair of the CIRB gets final approval of any arbitrated award and in this case, has choosen to subject the award to a "limited review." You may read into that whatever you wish however without a direct line into Lordon's brain, your opinion is about as useful as the steaming pile of crud you posted. Your lack of knowledge of the details of either protocol can only lead to the conclusion that you are an uninformed outsider to the process with no real stake in the outcome and that you are posting here to bloat your negligble self-esteem. At best you might be the pre-pubescent lurking child of an OAC member who unfortunately didn't purchase "Net Nanny". Law school my a$$! Go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Jp I know you’re &%$@! at ACPA because of the longstanding debate [for lack of a better word - and I won’t be rehashing that here with you except to say that I am sympathetic to much of your collective arguments and that I support resolution. Also, please spare your sarcastic and perhaps condescending crap for someone else, I won’t bite. Name one? How about you tell me, and anyone else interested, how and why ZIP was born, the evolution of ZIP and the direct involvement of Air Canada Pilots and our Union. Please also include the scope concessions, pay concessions and other contractual concessions offered, and accepted, by ACPA. Please include the SSV factor for those unfamiliar as well as how we arrived at the present limit of aircraft. You may even take a stab at how that decision helps to strengthen the collective platform of Air Canada, a platform shared with some other 30,000 something employees. That’s one, I have so many more. First, I am awaiting your response. Cheers dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Thanks chico, Of course you're correct, though I still want to hear JD's response and read the supporting documentation. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.