for Neo:

[Mitch Cronin]

Neo,

In a post below, I believe you to be saying, that a solution will come from an understanding of the problem and that necessitates an acknowledgement of the history, every detail of it. If I'm correct so far, then I think you should consider (and perhaps many others should consider...) that many people prefer to agree to disagree, forget and forgive, and move on with their hot-buttons un-pushed.

I recognize, and I agree, that a thorough working out of the problem, including a complete acknowledgement of the details of the history is more beneficial to complete health, but there are people who find that so difficult that it becomes impossible for them. Many things could never be done, especially with regard to compromises and co-operation, if people were required to completely come to terms with the troubled past. Sometimes the benefit of moving forward can justify simply saying "all is forgotten".

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest neo]

I find your thoughts quite reasonable, Mitch. There probably are people who'd prefer to let the whole thing be forgotten. And by and large, they're not the people who are bringing the issue up. But if you're going to broach the subject as did UpperDeck, then responding to it is a reasonable thing to do.

And I also think it's reasonable to note that UpperDeck and I were able to discuss the matter in a civil way. We clearly have a difference of opinion, but no one was abusive. That aspect only arose from a third party, who didn't seem to be able to contain his anger over someone else's discusssion. But his inability to face the issues is not applicable to everyone. Many people ARE able to deal with a different interpretation of the truth, and those people often benefit from that debate even if they don't join in. Those who can't face it without intense pain are free to ignore the discussion. No one can force them to look at anything they wish to ignore.

And while there can be value in forgetting about an issue that one can't get over, there is also danger in it. It tends to ensure that the same mistakes are repeated, over and over, to the detriment of both the person doing the forgetting and those who deal with the consequences of it. It would be one thing if the only person affected by your desire to erase the past was yourself. But that is not the case in the matter we were discussing. That matter had a profound affect on a great number of people. And true to the above, the same mistakes are being repeated today, and the same people on both sides of the issue are suffering the consequences of it all over again. This isn't 'healthy' forgetting, Mitch. It's dysfunctional amnesia.

Pilots are pitted against pilots at Air Canada. I would be the first to say "fuggetaboutit" if it were not for the fact that it's happening as we speak. It's not some issue that's gone away, it's something that we're dealing with today, and that our employer and employees have guaranteed we will be dealing with in the future.

If you have a little trouble understanding the immediacy and strength of this issue to pilots, consider this imaginary scenario: during the negotiation of your Tentative Agreement a few weeks ago, your union learns that the JAZZ maintenance workers had already signed an agreement to service all the narrowbody aircraft at Air Canada, everything up to the 320 say. And what's more, this same kind of rivalry between your two employee groups had been going on for more than a decade. Would your thinking still be that maybe it's best not to point out the problem? That you shouldn't raise the issue because, well, some people can't hold their tempers over it?

By all means let sleeping dogs lie, but I'm afraid that this dog is wide awake and gnawing at everyone's feet. Is the answer to a contentious issue that continues to cause problems simply to avoid discussing it? Sorry, but that just ain't me. I stick my nose in, I've always been that way. And because I recognize that my own personality is mixed up in that tendency, I try to make sure that a) I don't stir the pot, and that I try to keep the discussion civil.

I hope some of that makes sense to you. I know it's not easy watching such intense discord. It's even less easy being the target of it. But we should never forget ( ) that there is a wide audience here that extends far beyond those who react so negatively in their posts. They're the silent ones, but they view, respond and consider posted content just like everyone else. And just maybe they benefit from seeing alternative viewpoints. That, at least, is my belief.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

I find your thoughts quite reasonable, Mitch. There probably are people who'd prefer to let the whole thing be forgotten. And by and large, they're not the people who are bringing the issue up. But if you're going to broach the subject as did UpperDeck, then responding to it is a reasonable thing to do.

And I also think it's reasonable to note that UpperDeck and I were able to discuss the matter in a civil way. We clearly have a difference of opinion, but no one was abusive. That aspect only arose from a third party, who didn't seem to be able to contain his anger over someone else's discusssion. But his inability to face the issues is not applicable to everyone. Many people ARE able to deal with a different interpretation of the truth, and those people often benefit from that debate even if they don't join in. Those who can't face it without intense pain are free to ignore the discussion. No one can force them to look at anything they wish to ignore.

And while there can be value in forgetting about an issue that one can't get over, there is also danger in it. It tends to ensure that the same mistakes are repeated, over and over, to the detriment of both the person doing the forgetting and those who deal with the consequences of it. It would be one thing if the only person affected by your desire to erase the past was yourself. But that is not the case in the matter we were discussing. That matter had a profound affect on a great number of people. And true to the above, the same mistakes are being repeated today, and the same people on both sides of the issue are suffering the consequences of it all over again. This isn't 'healthy' forgetting, Mitch. It's dysfunctional amnesia.

Pilots are pitted against pilots at Air Canada. I would be the first to say "fuggetaboutit" if it were not for the fact that it's happening as we speak. It's not some issue that's gone away, it's something that we're dealing with today, and that our employer and employees have guaranteed we will be dealing with in the future.

If you have a little trouble understanding the immediacy and strength of this issue to pilots, consider this imaginary scenario: during the negotiation of your Tentative Agreement a few weeks ago, your union learns that the JAZZ maintenance workers had already signed an agreement to service all the narrowbody aircraft at Air Canada, everything up to the 320 say. And what's more, this same kind of rivalry between your two employee groups had been going on for more than a decade. Would your thinking still be that maybe it's best not to point out the problem? That you shouldn't raise the issue because, well, some people can't hold their tempers over it?

By all means let sleeping dogs lie, but I'm afraid that this dog is wide awake and gnawing at everyone's feet. Is the answer to a contentious issue that continues to cause problems simply to avoid discussing it? Sorry, but that just ain't me. I stick my nose in, I've always been that way. And because I recognize that my own personality is mixed up in that tendency, I try to make sure that a) I don't stir the pot, and that I try to keep the discussion civil.

I hope some of that makes sense to you. I know it's not easy watching such intense discord. It's even less easy being the target of it. But we should never forget ( ) that there is a wide audience here that extends far beyond those who react so negatively in their posts. They're the silent ones, but they view, respond and consider posted content just like everyone else. And just maybe they benefit from seeing alternative viewpoints. That, at least, is my belief.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest GDR]

Your posts on the whole regional stuation were very informative. You have witnessed it from both sides and as a result probably have a far better perspective on it than just about anybody. It's hard to believe how many years ago that was and we're still arguing about it today.

It's a sad commentary on our profession and human nature in general.

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

I agree with Greg, Richard. And I hope you know I wasn't suggesting you don't discuss it. Discussion is what we're here for.

I think it may be easier for many to move forward based on facts as they exist today, rather than getting mired in a web of what happened yesterday and who did what to who... People's memories differ, and some are naturally charged toward strong emotions based on events that did indeed hurt them.

If today you have the problem, you need to find a solution to today's problem. If you've learned from the past, great! But if you start out trying to correct the problem by rehashing a past that makes people angry, it'll be harder to find agreement among angry people.

If you can, by civil discussion, come to a resolution of sorts over past events, all the better! But some will get angry over the past and it serves no one to allow them and their anger, and the counter anger their reactions provoke, to get in the way of todays solutions.

I have no doubt that if I was involved in that imaginary scenario, that I'd be as emotionally charged as anyone else. I also wouldn't be as able to negotiate until I calmed down. But I wouldn't think it best "not to point out the problem", and no, I wouldn't avoid the issue. I only suggest the history... continuing the imaginary scenario: discussion of that time when the IAM screwed the CAW, - or was it the CAW screwing the IAM??... - ten years ago, ...is of much use in discussions that seek to solve current problems, if all that history discussion does is anger people on both sides of the fence.

Just a snack for thought I guess.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest neo]

On the contrary, Mitch, it's a banquet.

And like most folks, we each have our own tastes. One man's meat is another man's poison, and all that. That's the beauty of a smorgasbord like the AEF: it can appeal to all tastes. If something isn't to your liking, then simply avoid it. But everyone loses if the available choices in the banquet are limited by anyone's individual preferences.

If it's easier for some to come to grips with reality by focusing on facts as they exist today, there's plenty of handholds, believe me. Will that discussion take place without anyone pointing out how the current situation mirrors what's happened in the past; how the current events were rooted in choices made years ago? That's unlikely in my view, but those who don't wish to consider those comments are free, as always, to avoid them.

And I can't tell you how much I agree with you that pointing out the mistakes that OTHERS made is entirely contrary to what's needed in this particular case. That's why I was at great pains to point out that _I_ was involved and bore collective responsibility for what happened. I REFUSE to ignore the choices I made, my intentions, my goals. I put them all up front, warts and all, for everyone to see. I don't point out where others went wrong. I point out where I, and the collective we, went wrong. That's a crucial difference, Mitch, and I sure hope you can see it.

*******************

Hello? Brave Prediction Department? Speaking... Around this particular issue, if you think you've seen some sparks fly so far, you haven't seen anything yet. My guess is that most of us are still giving our heads a shake and coming to terms with all that's happened. But as the cobwebs clear and people come to grips with just what's gone on, as people in the two employee groups react to the way they've been postitioned by Mr. Rovinescu, that you will look back on my recent discussions as a peaceful zephyr blowing through the Forum.

bon appetit,

neo

[Guest neo]

Thanks for your comments, Greg.

Is my perspective better than someone else's? Do I have a clearer view, a more valid take on the whole thing? I have no way of knowing. I'm simply being as honest about the broader issues as I can.

There is another question that you can ask yourself though, and it might lend itself to a more definitive answer. The question is: Is my perspective useful? Is there a potential advantage for everyone, should they choose to accept it? The answer is yes.

Until BOTH parties in a conflict are willing to acknowledge their individual roles in the dispute, nothing will be resolved. The conflict will continue indefinitely. Assigning all the blame to the other party may satisfy your sense of outrage, but it locks you into a path of mutual destructiveness. The evidence of that is staring us in the face right now. Air Canada management played both pilot groups off each other. They created a situation that, baring some very mature thinking on both sides, guarantees that the regional and mainline pilots will be at each other's throats for years to come.

It IS a sad commentary on our profession, and possibly on our species as well. It's difficult to believe that people who are smart enough to fly airplanes can get sucked in by the same time-worn management ploy over and over again. More than that, it beggars the imagination that we should be so STUPID as to walk blindly, willfully, into circumstances like this. The means to deal with this issue has always been in our power, but we prefer to cling to the dysfunctional dynamic we're familiar with rather than break through to something unknown, but potentially better.

Pilots, by and large, are frightened by the unknown: they'd rather live with the crappy familiar... bitching all the time, mind you... than to break out of the mold and go for the gold. Is that a professional failing or human nature? You be the judge.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest easyjazz]

Man, good read:)

There have been so many good posts amid the anger and frustration. even some plausable solutions.

As much as this forum stirs the pot it allow's us an insight into the "other point of view". Sometimes one can only see the extreams but through it all the balanced views are usually just that, balanced.

Sometimes the bait is too strong and we go for it with emotions on high, but overall we know there in lies a solution...

[Mitch Cronin]

"everyone loses if the available choices in the banquet are limited by anyone's individual preferences"

Agreed.

"

Will that discussion take place without anyone pointing out how the current situation mirrors what's happened in the past; how the current events were rooted in choices made years ago? That's unlikely in my view"

Agreed again... The difficulty will come as those who are angered by past events and have built huge stone walls to any notion of reconciling differences attempt to fortify those walls and arm them with cannons.

There are, it seems, many, in both camps, who feel so strongly about the difficulties of the past that they're apparently prepared to sacrifice whatever gains may come from a resolution and do what they can to prevent it for the sake of vengeance.

"pointing out the mistakes that OTHERS made is entirely contrary to what's needed"... "I REFUSE to ignore the choices I made, my intentions, my goals."... "I don't point out where others went wrong. I point out where I, and the collective we, went wrong. That's a crucial difference, Mitch, and I sure hope you can see it. "

I can.

If I were to imagine a discussion here that could actually help lead to a solution, I'd imagine it would be necessary for those of you who can write well, and put aside your own anger, even in the face of some pure venom, to stay heavily involved in that discussion.... to help the discussion maintain a civil basis, even amid the angry rabbit trails.

There does seem to be a strong desire from many on both sides to find a solution. It's been discussed numerous times here since I first started visiting the AEF, ...but it seems it inevitably winds up becoming a "slag fest" of sorts, ...and then the discussion is abandoned by those who have no stomach for the harsher, less civil minded among you. It's the anger that gets in the way of moving forward.

Take the exchange between Buskipper and John S. above, for example. Clearly both are angry. And just as clearly both are capable of civil discussion. The temptation - perhaps felt by many - is to drop the subject... Some folks can't forget the hurts of the past, some of which continue in the form of a law suit, and others find it difficult, in the face of that anger, to avoid mentioning all that angers them as well.

From my perspective... unattached and unaffected as I am (so far, but that could change), it seems obvious that the majority from both camps would stand to benefit by a resolution. As Greg and others have pointed out, there are solutions. The majority from both sides weren't involved in much or any of the past difficulties that lies at the root of the anger, so all the reasons to move forward are there.

The questions remain; will the gains to be realized by finding a solution be recognized as worth the effort of hearing the anger, and will the people who can maintain civil discourse bother to do so, amid the flying mud, long enough to progress?

Maybe more time is needed, but as you all are aware, "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans".... Lay-offs, retirements, equipment bids, route structures and the allocation of equipment to one side or the other... all things happening as time goes by and more and more people are adversely effected by the lack of agreement. Eventually this becomes a problem to the airline as well.

Cheers Neo, I'm off to work on my boat.

Mitch

[Guest neo]

Keen insight, sir!

Speaking personally, it always nice to have someone compliment your post. But it's when someone from the 'opposite camp' in a contentious issue states, "Sometimes I hate what you say, but I respect your opinions..." that I feel like I'm doing more than just spewing words.

The condition that I put on myself is to try and take the broadest perspective I'm capable of taking, regardless of whether or not it favors the camp I'm in. I do my best not to distort the truth, and in particular, try not to forget crucial points which do not support my point of view.

In other words, _if there is some value to be gained from it_ I try to offer a different interpretation that's consistent with ALL the facts, and that hopefully fosters a worthwhile goal. There's times when that interpretation may look very odd or even like heresy to some people. But it's in precisely those sorts of places that creative and worthwhile answers are found to difficult questions.

Have a great day,

neo

[Guest neo]

Keen insight, sir!

Speaking personally, it always nice to have someone compliment your post. But it's when someone from the 'opposite camp' in a contentious issue states, "Sometimes I hate what you say, but I respect your opinions..." that I feel like I'm doing more than just spewing words.

The condition that I put on myself is to try and take the broadest perspective I'm capable of taking, regardless of whether or not it favors the camp I'm in. I do my best not to distort the truth, and in particular, try not to forget crucial points which do not support my point of view.

In other words, _if there is some value to be gained from it_ I try to offer a different interpretation that's consistent with all the facts, and that hopefully fosters a worthwhile goal. There's times when that interpretation may look very odd or even like heresy to some people. But it's in precisely those sorts of places that creative and worthwhile answers are found to difficult questions.

Have a great day,

neo