when will you learn?

[cp fa]

I tried to respond to your post below, but for some reason, I couldn't get the response window to open on that post.

I was hired with CP Air in 81, and flew for 20 years. In the course of my employment, I experienced 5 mergers. During some of them I was with the purchasor airline, during others, the company I worked for was bought out. In some of them, the companies we merged with were in financial trouble, in others, my own company was in financial trouble. So whenever I hear anyone say "we bought you", "you were bankrupt", or my personal favourite, "it's not a merger, it's a takeover", I think it's a big pile of crap, because I know that I personally, as an individual employee, had absolutely nothing to do with any of the decision making in these mergers, nor was I responsible for the financial condition of the company I worked for.

Having worked during, and in the aftermath of all of these mergers has also given me the experience of working with various employee groups, coming from various components, merged under various methods.

I have a sibling who is an exCAIL FA, originally WD. I also have 3 relatives who are original AC pilots, one of whom is my spouse. In the course of our 22 years together, we have done most of our socializing with pilots and flight attendants from both Air Canada and Canadian. So although I am not in law school, I think I am in a position to be able to look at this from all sides.

I thought the Mitchnick award was grossly unfair, and apparently I'm not the only one, because it is no longer in effect. ACPA based their submission on the equipment list. I don't agree with that approach because I believe that basing a merged list on what the equipment looked like on the day of the merger only provides a snapshot, and not a full view of the careers of the employees involved. However, since Mitchnick bought into their submission, I believe that more credit should have been given for the fact that the Canadian group brought such a greatly accelerated rate of retirements to the group as a whole. There are only two ways to make your way up the equipment list - through aircraft purchases and retirements, and of the two, the only one that is a sure thing is retirements.

As for the Keller award, I don't know whether it's fair or not, since the only information I've seen, other than the award and the list, are the selective snippets of data that ACPA has sent out, for example, the fact that some Canadian guys jumped over 700 numbers. Without an explanation of the context of that particular statistic, I thought it was an extremely misleading statement, and until I see all of the data, presented in context, along with the future projections of this award, in other words, the whole picture, I don't know whether it is fair or not. I would assume though, that Mr. Keller had all that data before him when he made the ruling.

I do believe that had this been the initial award, minus the "Mitchnick enhancement", both sides would have been equally PO'd. I also believe that if this list had come out last year, instead of the Mitchnick list, the situation would not have been further enflamed by the fact that the airline is downsizing, as is the case now.

So there you have it, two original Air Canada pilots' wives, with two totally different points of view. Perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you think it is.

[dozerboy]

Juliette Delta.

I have a question for you. If ACPA just sat back and let this thing fly without a fight, what do you think that the result would have been?

Do you think that more flying would have been transferred to Jazz? Probably it would have. If more flying is transferred to Jazz, that means less flying at mainline. What happens to all of the other mainline unions? If mainline goes down to 132 aircraft...which was proposed by Calin and his band of rapists, do you honestly think that mainline f/a's, dispatchers, rampies and machinists will be required in such numbers? You may not like ACPA's methods, but we saved some of your mainline sorry a**es as well. In fact we did such a "great" job, that 5 year RJ f/o's will be earning less than the guy marshalling in the aircraft and the F/A who is working in the back. Maybe, just maybe, you should thank ACPA for keeping so many jobs at the mainline....

[Jaydee]

http://www.acpa.ca/press_news/2003/dissent.pdf

every thing you ever wanted to know about the Keller award

[Southshore]

an "A" student who needed to tell me he was and "A" student.

[cp fa]

First of all, I've already read it, and secondly, if you're going to classify one man's opinion as "every thing you ever wanted to know about the Keller award", then why choose Vorster? Why not choose, say, Keller?

[Southshore]

an "A" student who needed to tell me he was and "A" student.

[Southshore]

an "A" student who needed to tell me he was an "A" student.

[Guest neo]

And there I was thinking I caught the tone of the thread pretty good, class-wise I mean.

Ah well.

[Guest V1V2Vgo]

Why do I even bother with your posts, Richie? You suggested it was a morbid attraction, much like looking at a train wreck. You just have to look.

Naw, more like an incredulous disbelief, wondering what the next bizarre, outrageous entry will be in a gay parade.

Good nite.

[Guest mareli]

That was in response to this post. It's not something I usually tell people.

"I must be surviving law school somehow"???

You don't know this ?? Perhaps teachers have pity and let you attend for their amusement.

All my professors always let us know if we were passing or not.

Maybe you were trying to say, "I have been surviving law school somehow!"

Yet, when one mentions "law school" the induvidual doesn't usually get alot of sympathy

Take care and goodluck in school. Hope you find out soon if you are passing

Peanuts

[sustainable]

You tell me. This is the protocol. I think the answer to your question is either politics or pacification.

CIRB FILE NO. 22220-C

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WHEREAS the CIRB, in its Decision No. 183, overturned the Mitchnick seniority award and ordered the parties to seek a new seniority solution;

AND WHEREAS ALPA and ACPA have commenced proceedings to judicially review, respectively, the CIRB's decision to adopt, and its subsequent decision to set aside, the Mitchnick award;

AND WHEREAS the parties seek a final and binding resolution of the seniority dispute.

THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Composition of Panel

1. Brian Keller will act as the Chair of a tripartite mediation/arbitration panel (the "panel") subject to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 below.

2. ACPA and ALPA will each nominate a person (a "nominee") to serve with Mr. Keller on that panel. The nominations will be addressed to Mr. Keller by no later than 5 p.m. on January 10, 2003. Mr. Keller will advise the parties of the composition of the panel when he has received both nominations.

3. If a nominee should become incapacitated prior to the final resolution of this matter, the parties shall receive directions from Mr. Keller. If Mr. Keller should become incapacitated prior to the final resolution of this matter, and the parties cannot agree on a solution, the parties shall receive directions from the CIRB.

Powers of Panel

4. The panel will determine a mediation/arbitration hearing schedule and its own process after consultation with the parties. The panel shall have all the powers that the CIRB would itself have in merging seniority lists under the Canada Labour Code other than the power to amend Decision No. 183 itself. Mr. Keller shall have the right to exercise all of these powers, acting alone, prior to constitution of the tripartite panel if and when he deems it appropriate to do so.

5. Air Canada shall provide both ALPA and ACPA on an equal basis in a timely fashion with any available data or material which is arguably relevant to the issues arising in the mediation/arbitration. Any disputes in this regard will be referred to the panel.

6. The parties, if they so choose, may raise concerns about the validity of each other's proposals with the panel. Such concerns, including those raised in relation to Letter Decision No. 754, will not be addressed by the CIRB.

7. ALPA will not seek any intervention by the CIRB or the panel concerning the role of ACPA staff in the seniority proceedings; that is, Issue 1 identified in CIRB Letter Decision No. 754.

8. The parties further agree that they will not pursue any Board proceedings relating to the seniority dispute, including initiating any request for reconsideration of the panel's decision(s). The parties also agree that they will take no position before the Board on the process before the panel, other than that they have entered into the process; and that, provided Decision No. 183 is not set aside, they have agreed to be bound by the seniority list resulting from the panel's decision. The parties do not waive any statutory recourse to the CIRB with respect to any matter the panel finds it does not have jurisdiction to decide, or to enforce the panel's decision(s).

9. Subject only to the judicial review rights of the parties described in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 below, the decision(s) of the panel will be for all purposes final and binding on the parties and the seniority list resulting from the decision(s)will be the seniority list that shall be implemented by the parties. A decision made by a majority of the members of the panel or, where there is no majority, by Mr. Keller, is a decision of the panel.

Judicial Review Rights Unaffected

10. It is understood that this mediation/arbitration is entered without prejudice to the right of ACPA and ALPA to pursue their respective existing applications for judicial review and any remedies therefrom. Depending on the outcome of such judicial review proceedings, such rights may include, inter alia, the adjournment or discontinuance of proceedings before the panel; participation in further CIRB proceedings should the Court remit that matter back to the CIRB; and the right to seek to set aside any new seniority arrangement that results from Decision No. 183.

11. Solely due to Arbitrator Mitchnick's unavailability in the coming months, ACPA has agreed that it will not pursue the question of his reappointment under the current Decision No. 183. ACPA reserves the right to seek his reappointment should Decision No. 183 be quashed in whole or in part. Should ACPA seek the reappointment of Arbitrator Mitchnick, ALPA reserves all of its objections to that reappointment and, in this regard, all rights to further submissions in 'phase three' of the reconsideration process before the CIRB.

12. It is also agreed that the parties reserve any rights they may have to seek judicial review of the panel's decisions.

Costs of Panel

13. Air Canada will pay the fees and disbursements of Chair Keller. ACPA and ALPA will each pay the fees and disbursements of its own nominee.

[sustainable]

Winky thingys unintentional.

[Guest Peanuts]

Good for you guy ! Keep up the good work. I may need you one day to represent me

Peanuts

[Jaydee]

Touche'

[Guest Goggles]

Ok, I did make a little bit of an overstatement.

ACPA's original proposal was to have a 4:1 ratio, with over half of the CAIL group BOTL.

So it wasn't all of the CAIL group, just half.

Satisfied?

Goggles

[Homerun]

The CAI proposal for DOH put 45% of OAC on the bottom. Tit for tat?

[duckedy]

and just what is your job title Juliette Delta?