Par88 Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Of course everyones opinion is welcomed. A) Should the two groups stay separate and let an arbitrator/creditor/executive/majic 8 ball...etc. decide a winner/looser? Get some kind of help from the outside and find a middle ground (hopefully somewhere near the middle) and guide our fate? I know it's the same old question but I'm not looking for who you think is right or wrong, I'm merely interested to see if there is an appetite in either group to begin meaningful talks. A or B? If you must add your 2-cents, please be civil. Something that even "Don Hudson" or "GDR" would approve of. (Since the folks in some earlier thread decided to throw your names around, I thought I might solicite your opinions) Thanx in advance..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Not in the leaugue of DH or GDR but I would support finding a way to work together. It going to take a whole squadron of crow-eating on both sides and I just can't see how it can even get started. Chico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 In one way I agree with Chico, but in another I don't. There is a lot of water under the bridge for people in both camps. There are however a great many who were either, hired after the whole Picher mess, or who belonged to the blue team at the time, and the group to which I belong who want to put the whole thing behind us. Maybe the folks from these three groups could make it happen. I don't think that there is an appetite in the mainline camp to try and achieve an arbitrated settlement. With the experiences that we have had with arbitrators for the last few years I don't think there would be many who would want to go down that road. Right now we are locked in a competition to see who will fly the smaller jets for the least money. The current situation is nothing but a lose lose scenario. There should be a will to try and do something. The only possible solution in my opinion is a negotiated one. I apologise for repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but the only solution that I can see coming out of negotiations is one that sees mainline pilots tail ended on the JAZZ list, and Jazz pilots tailended on the main line list. Any pilots in the future would then be placed on the bottom of both lists. There are no losers and both sides gain something, in other words it would be a win win. If this were negotiated it would be a tough sell to get the company to implement it but at least we could present a united front. I don't see any appetite for this in either of the MECs so it would have to be membership driven. Who knows, but the hard feelings surrounding the Picher issue have lasted longer than the hard feelings after World War II. It sure would be nice to see something done. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest buskipper Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I see no interest from the mainline group to merge with Jazz. In fact, I think there is an extremely strong concensus to do anything to prevent it. Maybe some feel differently but most have no desire to even consider it. Why? The most senior pilots, including many retirees, are being sued by a group of Air Ontario pilots for $300 million dollars. A huge number of pilots have a very bitter memory of events during the '90s which resulted in ACPA's formation. The feeders played a major role during these events. During the layoff in the '90s our pilots who accepted jobs at the feeders were treated poorly by many feeder pilots. Since '95 our new-hires and move-ups were subject to all kinds of abuse and intimidation from feeder pilots, including feeder management and union officials. The recent attempt to steal our flying by ALPA has not built any bridges between our groups. Its time to cut the ties not bind them into a disfunctional marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 A) Should the two groups stay separate and let an arbitrator/creditor/executive/majic 8 ball...etc. decide a winner/looser? That's a loaded question - right off the bat you imply that there has to be a winner and a loser. OK, let's deal with that idea. If you have two pilot groups - one twice the size (and perhaps three to four times the dues-paying income) it is hardly going to be a fair fight. In fact the smaller union's big stick would hardly have the same effect as the larger union's. Just think - if Jazz were to threaten a work stoppage then zip happens. If ACPA threatens a work slow-down then all hell breaks loose at head office. So, if there were to be a fight then the bigger, stronger union will get what it wants. (And might we say "Again"?) Get some kind of help from the outside and find a middle ground (hopefully somewhere near the middle) and guide our fate? Ah-ha! The key is in the details. Just take a look at Greg's comment: "Right now we are locked in a competition to see who will fly the smaller jets for the least money." For some (and Greg might include himself here) the current CCAA filings and TA's and perhaps the future of the aviation industry in Canada may be tied to the 'smaller jets'. It would appear that ACPA is going to 'lower the bar' and offer to fly the smaller jets for less than the Jazz pilot are currently being paid. But I believe that if Jazz were to get these smaller jets then most Jazz pilots would actually be getting a teeny raise - or staying at their current level. Hardly lowering the bar from the Jazz perspective. (Side bar: It would also seem to me that if you include the hugely expensive AC pilot's pension and Top Hat into the total compensation calculation then I don't see how it is possible for ACPA to claim they will fly anything for less than Jazz pilots.) Is there a middle ground? Perhaps, but we can't even agree on the goal posts let alone where the middle of the field is. Well, perhaps that's not 100% true. I think we can agree on one goal posts - the higher one is at 300 to 500 seats or whatever "heavy" the company is operating. The problem is at the other end. The largest, most powerful union in Canada says the lower goal post is at 55 seats; the smaller unions says it should be at 110 seats. If we don't even agree on that then what hope is there for finding the middle of the field? In fact just above is a 'buskipper post that talks about "The recent attempt to steal our flying by ALPA… ". Very divisive language, and very misleading and even hurtful. But totally understandable when you are the strongest kid in the schoolyard. Note to buskipper: Please let the judge know how you feel. Please please please. Signed, an "insidious and unsavory Jazz pilot". (More divisive, misleading and hurtful language. Guess who said it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest easyjazz Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 John S. well said! Par88 an exellent post but alas too many out there with the chip on the shoulder buskipper's blame it on anyone but me. GDR I wish your solution to senority could be adapted. This winner/looser thinking is killing us all. In the end the old saying "money talks" will prevail. The Jazz picture does not just include the pilots, it encompases an entire unified employee group. Jazz cost's are predicated on the whole enchelada. They are lower period. Let the creditors decide and get on with competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest givemeabreak Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 You are one bitter person! So how many numbers are you losing with Keller?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigol Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Well said easyjazz. Everybody forgets that costs include "every body" in the entire company, not just the pilots. You have to look at the big picture, and you are correct, as a whole the Jazz costs are lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Hi easyjazz You said, >>GDR I wish your solution to senority could be adapted. This winner/looser thinking is killing us all.<< Frankly I believe that there is a majority in both ACPA and ALPA that would support that resolution. The problem is to get it to a vote. It does seem to me that if either ACPA or ALPA could pass a resolution that publicly supported such a proposal that the other group would have a great deal of pressure to do likewise. I understand that the feelings of buskipper and there are others like him. I'm one of the ones being sued by the Air Ont group but they only represent a small percentage of JAZZ pilots. For me, it's a separate issue. We can go on for years at odds with each other or we can look at the damage it is doing to our profession and to the lives of junior pilots. It now takes about $60,000 in training costs and on average about 8 years of experience to get a $40,000 per year job, and those are the lucky ones. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Buskipper is one member of a group of about 3200. Why would you want to base the whole discussion on the posting of any one individual, whether it's buskipper or myself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fasteddy Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Hi Greg...your idea of being on each others list is interesting, however, the new hire ends up on both lists, can you elaborate abit how this works itself out in time. A curious fasteddy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Pretty straight forward really. All new hires go to the bottom of both lists whether they start off at the mainline or the regional. As more and more new hires come on board and more and more of the old guard retire the lists start to look more and more similar. The bottom part of both lists would obviously be identical. After all of the current members are retired the lists are completely identical and you would then have just one list. Hopefully that explains it. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 "sued by a group of Air Ontario pilots for $300 million dollars." Who is this Air Ontario airline? The question was about Jazz and AC Mainline.....I'm not sure how one has to do with the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 That's pure genius. Can anyone think of the cons on that issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fasteddy Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Thanks Greg...any positive input to the current situation is greatly welcome.My thanks to you and JW who always posted positive to the two groups being one,on this website,and the previous one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I agree with it, I've been advocating it as well for quite a while. The con is that it really doesn't do much to help the current situation. As in, let's say we agree that it is a good long term solution, but still, who gets the 110-76-55 seat aircraft now? Because it is still going to be an issue. Again Greg, I really do agree with the concept. It may help us out in our careers, and it will certainly help those that come after. But I think we have to find a solution to the current problem as well. I don't see either group after we agree to this saying "Okay, you take all the new aircraft". The other side of that problem, is that whoever does get that flying, will it cause greater motivation to find a long term solution like what we propose, or will it galvanize peoples distrust and lust for revenge on the other group, as we've seen from buskipper? Thoughts Greg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I question the genius, but there really aren't any cons for the current employees. The price for doing this will be paid by any new hires in the future. Anybody hired in the future to the mainline will be behind everyone at JAZZ which in my view is completely reasonable. This proposal has little if any immediate affect on anybody, but over time the JAZZ employees will have the choice to bid to the mainline with a spot on the seniority list reserved for them, and over time the mainline employees will enjoy some additional lay off protection. The only immediate benefit is that maybe we can stop competing to see who will fly the RJ for the least money. The other downside is for AC in general. There will be reluctance for them to implement this as they lose some control over hiring, and it also means additional training because it adds another fleet type to the mix. To get the company to go along with this there would have to be some bidding restrictions or they wouldn't allow it to be negotiated. The biggest obstacle to over come is to work around those that won't give up the hard feelings brought about by our history. The trouble is, if something like this isn't done, we're going to go on repeating that history to the detriment of both groups, which is pretty ridiculous when you figure that everyone's future is only as secure as the financial well being of our joint employer. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 The airplanes in question would have to be crew'd based on a ratio of mainline to Jazz pilots in order for this to be genuinely fair. Otherwise, as Terminated points out, there will still be a tug of war for the equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 The airplanes in question would have to be crew'd based on a ratio of mainline to Jazz pilots in order for this to be a solution. Otherwise, as Terminated points out, there will still be a tug of war for the equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terminated Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 "The airplanes in question would have to be crew'd based on a ratio of mainline to Jazz pilots.." That isn't a bad idea, actually. Possibly one that people might be able to live with. A real 'share the pain' for big picture gain scenario. The details would still be complicated, but there is some potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Hi Terminated To be honest I can be pretty much altruistic about this whole thing as I am too senior and too near to being kicked off the top end for it to have any affect on me whatsoever. I don't see this as being a solution to the disagreement over who flies the 100 seat aircraft. That fight will go on. I believe you are with JAZZ. If the aircraft goes to the mainline wouldn't you at least like to know that at some point you will have the opportunity to bid it. If it were to go to JAZZ then at least the junior members from th mainline would have some additional protection from being unemployed. This idea of putting the lists together should be done simply on it's own merits. It should not be viewed as having anything to do with the law suit or the controversy about who will fly the new aircraft. It is a long term solution to the problems. It is not a solution to problems over the short term. We have to look at what it does do, not what it doesn't do. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Hi Dick You said that, >>The airplanes in question would have to be crew'd based on a ratio of mainline to Jazz pilots in order for this to be a solution. Otherwise, as Terminated points out, there will still be a tug of war for the equipment.<< I disagree. This joint list proposal is a win win no matter who flies the new aircraft. If you start bringing other factors like that into the equation you wind up back in the same old leaky boat with both sides jockeying for the best position. We should just start at agreeing on this combining of lists, where nobody is giving up anything but both sides gain something. If we can come to an agreement on that, then we are in a much better position to start dealing with the more contentious issues. IMHO Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 "I disagree. This joint list proposal is a win win no matter who flies the new aircraft." Tell that to the 600 or so guys that would lose their jobs if all 75 and 110 seat aircraft went to Jazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Dastardly Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 "I disagree. This joint list proposal is a win win no matter who flies the new aircraft." Tell that to the 600 or so guys that would lose their positions if all 75 and 110 seat aircraft went to Jazz. I hope they like the right seat of the Dash 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Let's look at what happens if we don't do as I and others are suggesting, which is to combine the lists without dealing with the issue of who flies what. Scenario 1. The aircraft goes to the mainline. Under this scenario, because of a likely increase in jobs and the high number of retirements, AC will probably take back all those who are laid off and will likely have to hire additional pilots. At the same time it is quite likely that hiring at JAZZ will have stagnated. Who will AC hire? I suggest that it is very unlikely they will hire from the current JAZZ employees as it means additional training. Why would they displace a Dash 8 driver and then train him on the mainline. The company just negotiated an agreement where the obligation to hire from JAZZ was removed. They might hire laid off JAZZ employees and they might not. Scenario 2. The aircraft goes to JAZZ. JAZZ will take back their laid off pilots and have to do additional hiring. It is unlikely that they will hire laid off mainline pilots as they know that when they are called back to the mainline that they will again have additional training. In either case we are likely to have current pilots still on lay off status while the company hires pilots off the street. From a union standpoint the only thing blocking this is animosities that have been built up in the past to the detriment of both groups. Surely we are bigger people than that. Both unions talk about protecting their junioe members. Frankly, as I see it, a few of the senior members are stopping something that would give job protection to the junior members because of old battles. I think it is time to let go of the past, and start looking at the future. IMHO 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.