What has ACPA done for you latley?

[dragon]

Then you can clarify this statement, support it with some fact as well perhaps.

"It's fine to say that ACPA is seeking only to protect the interest of it's membership but surely the intrests of their membership extend further than their next paycheque or system bid. The leadership of any union needs to look beyond the often shortsighted demands of the vocal minority."

[dragon]

And finally, perhaps this one. Be accurate please, and factual.

"Air Canada requires a wholesale overhaul which includes a new approach to the way they do business! ACPA represents one of the "sacred cows" that need to be euthanized in order for this airline to progress to higher levels of efficiency and profitablility."

[dragon]

What does this refer to?

"But ALPA undeniably represents a much broader spectrum of airline interests than ACPA and therefor may be able to embrace a much more progressive approach to the situation."

[dragon]

No body, law or process, forces you to be a member of ACPA, or to pay dues to ACPA, so don't.

Your preface was that your intent was not ACPA bashing. What was it then?

[Don Hudson]

Dragon;

Re "No body, law or process, forces you to be a member of ACPA, or to pay dues to ACPA, so don't."

A little addition to this...its correct on the first part and indeed there are pilots at AC who do not belong to the Association.

The second part has been mentioned briefly by someone else, but to re-iterate, the Rand forumla requires that everyone who is a non-member in the same job (pilots at AC...mechanics etc..) must pay union dues on the same basis as members. For a full description of Justice Rand's ruling of decades ago, just do a Google on "Rand Formula". There are very good reasons for the ruling, but like everything attached to employees' well-fare these days, I suspect such a ruling may come under threat as well.

In fact, I am pleasantly surprised at the light and moderate tone of this thread as it had the potential for some real hard-nosed union and employee bashing instead of the mild complaint about "what my union is doing for me", the implied answer being, "why nothing!!", but in truth a complaint which typically without example(s) is so general and common that it cannot be helpful to anyone, union rep or member.

I am always taken aback when other employees, especially those who belong to unions themselves, dive in with both feet to take a round out of another union. If there were ever a time when employees need good, solid and unswerving representation it is now. By that I don't mean that unions ought not to give in to demands for roll-backs, because that would be stupid. I mean by that, that roll-backs can turn into complete routs where the company takes all it wants under the guise of taking what it needs.

It is convenient, easy and when anonymous, also hypocritical to criticize one's union for "what they've done for me lately.." types of bricks, especially in public. Unions are faulty organizations just like companies and governments.

My opinion isn't just blind support of unions, mine or others. Labour history in Canada and especially in the US clearly shows what happens when companies have free reign and nothing to fear by paying employees nickels and dimes and taking away employee benefits. This isn't opinion, its demonstrable fact. Its also demonstrable that with one or two high-profile exceptions, unions do not cause their employer to founder. Most times, other factors far beyond the control of employees do this, but of course the scapegoat is an easy one to invoke, especially these days when even employees themselves thoughtlessly take part in another's agenda of union-bashing.

Regards,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Dragon;

Re "No body, law or process, forces you to be a member of ACPA, or to pay dues to ACPA, so don't."

A little addition to this...its correct on the first part and indeed there are pilots at AC who do not belong to the Association.

The second part has been mentioned briefly by someone else, but to re-iterate, the Rand forumla requires that everyone who is a non-member in the same job (pilots at AC...mechanics etc..) must pay union dues on the same basis as members. For a full description of Justice Rand's ruling of decades ago, just do a Google on "Rand Formula". There are very good reasons for the ruling, but like everything attached to employees' well-fare these days, I suspect such a ruling may come under threat as well.

In fact, I am pleasantly surprised at the light and moderate tone of this thread as it had the potential for some real hard-nosed union and employee bashing instead of the mild complaint about "what my union is doing for me", the implied answer being, "why nothing!!", but in truth a complaint which typically without example(s) is so general and common that it cannot be helpful to anyone, union rep or member.

I am always taken aback when other employees, especially those who belong to unions themselves, dive in with both feet to take a round out of another union. If there were ever a time when employees need good, solid and unswerving representation it is now. By that I don't mean that unions ought not to give in to demands for roll-backs, because that would be stupid. I mean by that, that roll-backs can turn into complete routs where the company takes all it wants under the guise of taking what it needs.

It is convenient, easy and when anonymous, also hypocritical to criticize one's union for "what they've done for me lately.." types of bricks, especially in public. Unions are faulty organizations just like companies and governments.

My opinion isn't just blind support of unions, mine or others. Labour history in Canada and especially in the US clearly shows what happens when companies have free reign and nothing to fear by paying employees nickels and dimes and taking away employee benefits. This isn't opinion, its demonstrable fact. Its also demonstrable that with one or two high-profile exceptions, unions do not cause their employer to founder. Most times, other factors far beyond the control of employees do this, but of course the scapegoat is an easy one to invoke, especially these days when even employees themselves thoughtlessly take part in another's agenda of union-bashing.

Regards,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Re "ACPA represents one of the "sacred cows" that need to be euthanized in order for this airline to progress to higher levels of efficiency and profitablility."

"Euthanized"? My goodness.

Anyway...one doesn't "euthanize" unions, one finds people of common interest, goes to the Labour Offices and creates a union which serves the interests of that common group. No one "euthanizes" a union.

"Higher levels of 'efficiency' and 'profitability'"...

Well, you won't get an argument from one employee at all, on "profitability" because that's how we all keep our jobs. But that concept also involves the employees, not just the shareholders or the owners. Do you mean that employees should hand over wages so that they can be put into the "profit" column?

As a side-question, do you see employees as "assets" for their company, or "liabilities", or, at varying times, some aspects of both. I realize its a question that "boxes" an answer, and I don't want this, but at the same time, do we see employees as generally "contributory" or a "draw" on the organization? - This organization.

I think you will also find that not one employee would deny that their company, and themselves need to be efficient.

Given this, I would like to ask what is meant by the term "efficiency" in the context you're writing in. "Who's" efficiency? Do you mean contractually? Do you mean that supervisors have ultimate authority to determine how the workforce will be tasked, to achieve this goal? And in the various jobs, careers, professions, what constitutes "efficiency"? For Maintenance?...for Flight Crew?...for Flight Attendants?...for Dispatchers, Baggage Handlers, Passenger Agents?

I know you focussed on "ACPA" so you must mean pilots. How are they to become more "efficient" and in what areas are they presently not doing this? (I can name quite a number myself, but I want to be sure of the context here so that what began as a very general, loose and one-size-fits-all description of ACPA, is turned into a meaningful critique.) You have taken a strongly adversarial stance wrt ACPA and it is fair, in discourse, to require where this may be justified.

Thanks,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Re "ACPA represents one of the "sacred cows" that need to be euthanized in order for this airline to progress to higher levels of efficiency and profitablility."

"Euthanized"? My goodness.

Anyway...one doesn't "euthanize" unions, one finds people of common interest, goes to the Labour Offices and creates a union which serves the interests of that common group. No one "euthanizes" a union.

"Higher levels of 'efficiency' and 'profitability'"...

Well, you won't get an argument from one employee at all, on "profitability" because that's how we all keep our jobs. But that concept also involves the employees, not just the shareholders or the owners. Do you mean that employees should hand over wages so that they can be put into the "profit" column?

As a side-question, do you see employees as "assets" for their company, or "liabilities", or, at varying times, some aspects of both. I realize its a question that "boxes" an answer, and I don't want this, but at the same time, do we see employees as generally "contributory" or a "draw" on the organization? - This organization.

I think you will also find that not one employee would deny that their company, and themselves need to be efficient.

Given this, I would like to ask what is meant by the term "efficiency" in the context you're writing in. "Who's" efficiency? Do you mean contractually? Do you mean that supervisors have ultimate authority to determine how the workforce will be tasked, to achieve this goal? And in the various jobs, careers, professions, what constitutes "efficiency"? For Maintenance?...for Flight Crew?...for Flight Attendants?...for Dispatchers, Baggage Handlers, Passenger Agents?

I know you focussed on "ACPA" so you must mean pilots. How are they to become more "efficient" and in what areas are they presently not doing this? (I can name quite a number myself, but I want to be sure of the context here so that what began as a very general, loose and one-size-fits-all description of ACPA, is turned into a meaningful critique.) You have taken a strongly adversarial stance wrt ACPA and it is fair, in discourse, to require where this may be justified.

Thanks,

Don

[dragon]

Hi Don,

Thanks for the info, some interesting history there.

Thank you as well for your usual informative and level response.

[GTFA]

Hello Don,

Re "ACPA represents one of the "sacred cows" that need to be euthanized in order for this airline to progress to higher levels of efficiency and profitablility."

"Euthanized"? My goodness.

Anyway...one doesn't "euthanize" unions, one finds people of common interest, goes to the Labour Offices and creates a union which serves the interests of that common group. No one "euthanizes" a union.

Whatever…It was an analogy based on the reference to “cow” and being sensitive to animal cruelty I chose to “euthenize” instead of slaughter! OK maybe slaughter is too strong. How about remodelled in a significant way so as to reflect the contemporary labour/corporate relationships in aviation?

"Higher levels of 'efficiency' and 'profitability'"...

Well, you won't get an argument from one employee at all, on "profitability" because that's how we all keep our jobs. But that concept also involves the employees, not just the shareholders or the owners. Do you mean that employees should hand over wages so that they can be put into the "profit" column?

I am just wondering, when the last contract was negotiated did ACPA explore the ability of the company to accommodate such demands? I think that as employees of a company you are without question a stakeholder in the success or failure of the organization and should exercise due diligence on any matter that will effect the bottom line.

As a side-question, do you see employees as "assets" for their company, or "liabilities", or, at varying times, some aspects of both. I realize its a question that "boxes" an answer, and I don't want this, but at the same time, do we see employees as generally "contributory" or a "draw" on the organization? - This organization.

As a side answer, I can expand on my point above. It may be outside the “boxed answer” you were anticipating. Everyone who is associated with any commercial organization is in it for some measure of gain. Whether it is monetary or personal satisfaction. Our desire to succeed would make us assets yet our need to benefit would make us liabilities. Therefore what we are looking for is a sustainable symbiosis between all stakeholders.

I think you will also find that not one employee would deny that their company, and themselves need to be efficient.

I don’t agree. I have observed all too many “freeloaders” in and around the aviation industry.

Given this, I would like to ask what is meant by the term "efficiency" in the context you're writing in. "Who's" efficiency? Do you mean contractually? Do you mean that supervisors have ultimate authority to determine how the workforce will be tasked, to achieve this goal? And in the various jobs, careers, professions, what constitutes "efficiency"? For Maintenance?...for Flight Crew?...for Flight Attendants?...for Dispatchers, Baggage Handlers, Passenger Agents?

I believe that this is where strong and capable management is required. There needs to be a balance of all costs and a strong resistance to Overpaying for any level of service while ensuring a productive workforce willing to make the necessary commitment to corporate success.

I know you focussed on "ACPA" so you must mean pilots. How are they to become more "efficient" and in what areas are they presently not doing this? (I can name quite a number myself, but I want to be sure of the context here so that what began as a very general, loose and one-size-fits-all description of ACPA, is turned into a meaningful critique.) You have taken a strongly adversarial stance wrt ACPA and it is fair, in discourse, to require where this may be justified.

Maybe this analysis should be applied to all unions. I have focused on ACPA because it’s the easiest target right now. I think that the current situation at AC is partly a product of an inefficient and ineffective workforce. The company was not able to adjust to the changes in the market demand quickly enough to stave off competition in several areas. I think that all the stakeholders from shareholder to service suppliers can bare some responsibility in this predicament. AC is still struggling with the “Crown Corp.” mentality. Therein lie the “sacred cows”.

Back to ACPA... So far all I have seen from ACPA is monetary consideration. Will there be significant changes to your CA to reflect a “New Model” for this airline? I think that the considerations need to be just as much mentality as monetary.

GTFA

[GTFA]

Ok. try this...

What has ACPA done to for the company lately???

[GTFA]

Or better yet, can you refute the claim with examples of how ACPA has strived to ensure long term viability of AC other than for the purpose of maintaining their antiquated policies regarding pay and working conditions?

[GTFA]

I think that everyone agreed when RM said:

"The Model is broken."

So how are "We" recognizing this?

What are "we" doing to realize and participate in the restructuring that is going to take place?

Are lay-offs and pay reductions the answer?

GTFA

[dragon]

I could give you many examples - how far back would you like to go?

However, since you started the line of questioning, how about you let me know some of the ways ACPA has not strived to ensure the long term viability of AC while still attempting to represent it's members fairly?

Should be easy enough for you. Remember, be factual and accurate.

[dragon]

Let me ask you GTFA, so I understand you better. Can you give me your aviation biography in ten words or less?

Who are the "WE" you mention? Instead of asking me what we are doing, why don't you tell me what we're NOT doing. Finally, Robert says the model is broken. What has RM proposed to fix the model?

Offer me a reasonable response and I will offer you the same.

cheers

[GTFA]

OK.

How about the CCAA filing of April 1st 2003.

AC desparately needs to restructure and gain concessions from labour, lease holders and other contractors alike.

ACPA has merely conceded to temporary pay reductions without real consideration for any corporate restructuring that may be required.

Delay, delay delay...

Resist, resist, resist.

How does ACPA propose this company save itselfe???

GTFA

[GTFA]

I am a stakeholder in the future of Air Canada.

"We" are you and I.

Robert's only "ideas" contributed to where "we" are today. The last right thing he said was: Whoops, I broke it!

What I am looking for is some progressive thinking from ACPA, (demonstrating their favoured, leadership role), that would facilitate AC exiting this mess with a Plan that will not lead us back here again.

Are you willing to continue this discussion on that line?

GTFA

[dragon]

You forgot the biography, was that intentional?

First off, Robert Milton has no credibility with a vast majority of AC employees, not just ACPA. During the lead up to the negotiations with ACPA, valuable time was wasted as repeated requests for financial information were ignored by Robert Milton, this included pension shortfalls as well as secret executive salaries/bonuses and other sensitive data requested by ALL Air Canada unions. To this day, that information, save for the pension deficit, remains ‘Off limits’ to AC employees.

Temporary pay reductions? The agreement agreed to by ACPA runs until July 2009. Previous to this, the longest term of collective agreement was a four year term, agreed to in 2000, between AC and ACPA. Do you have ANY idea of the 37 major concessions made during the six year life of the new agreement?

Delay and resist? Hours before our agreed upon deadline, Calin Rovinescu, Chief Executive of Corporate Development, signs a contract with Jazz that would, if unchallenged, essentially wipe out a large part of the current AC mainline as we know it. What would your view of an appropriate response be from the ACPA executive?

ACPA does not propose how the company save itself, when it has offered to assist, ACPA is politely turned away. Robert Milton and his chosen few are responsible, that’s why they are here and so far, doesn’t seem like they are doing too great a job – on any front, be it political, internal, financial or other.

You also forgot to mention what great ideas Robert has come up with to fix the model, take a stab at it.

cheers

[GTFA]

Thanks.

I have to go now but before I do a couple of replies.

I have seen the concessions in the ACPA agreement. It would appear that they are given only monetary consideration and nothing more. I think that more is needed in the way of operational flexibility.

Maybe the part of AC that would have been stripped away was the part unable to prosper within the existing AC mainline structure.

I am sure that ACPA has some ideas of how they could have maintanined access to the jobs that were associated with that flying.

Bye for now, and thanks again.

GTFA

[dragon]

I am willing, I appreciate your civility though I do sense you reaching a little?..

Yes, he and Calin have had a large part in what has transpired since the glory days of RM’s arrival on the top perch. I think, he should stop blaming the entire world and start to accept some responsibility for his actions and decisions.

You still have not provided any examples of ACPAs actions for me to either refute or agree upon and when you do, when you offer me clear and accurate examples, I will be happy to do so. If you cannot, then I will be happy to provide you many many examples of why I believe your statement to be fundamentally inaccurate.

Till then, the ball is back with you.

cheers

[Guest Hawkeye]

<<"Hours before our agreed upon deadline, Calin Rovinescu, Chief Executive of Corporate Development, signs a contract with Jazz that would, if unchallenged, essentially wipe out a large part of the current AC mainline as we know it.">>

Which agreed upon ACPA deadlines are you referring too? Jazz had a signed agreement two days before the initial deadline expired.

[dragon]

I should go too.. my son wants to go to the swings, and he's the boss around here..

16% off the top, on top of that, no training pay, no overtime till 85 hours,[previously 78] ½ deadhead credit [this will add 3 or 4 days to some CRP blocks] home base training allowance gone, raises, bonuses gone, new <75 and 76 – 110 seat rates negotiated [10 year F/O <75 equals 60.71 a year – whats a 10 year ICFA make, how about a 10 year lead?] - monetarily, off the top of my head.

With respect to “operational flexibility’. Layoff guarantee – gone. Fleet guarantee – gone. Sim crewing, silent hour training – company discretion. A330-300 augmentation – gone. DB freeze 48 months, CBDB freeze – doubled, 24 months. AND, the flexibility of a variable DMM from as low as 70 to as high as 85 with a one minute outbound rule. Do you understand what that alone is worth to the company? Again, just off the top of my head.

Your last paragraph. I have a recent example for you there as well, it was the flexibility ACPA afforded the company in the form of work sharing, effectively saving the company millions of dollars while affording the company the operational flexibility it required.

Most of all, I am not complaining, I too beleive something had to be done. Its just that I think ACPA takes an active role and examples of that abound, imo.

With all due respect.

[dragon]

Hawkeye,

The deadline imposed by the legal people charged with Air Canada Creditor reorganization.

The life of the agreement is six years. I do not know how many hours are in six years, but it surely makes even 48 hours seem like a few in comparison, wouldn’t you agree? This WAS the issue that delayed any resolution, from ALL Air Canada pilots - you wonder why?

Let me ask you. How long do you think the Jazz MEC would like to discuss strategy assuming Calin signs a similar contract with the pilots from Air Georgian?

Try and see the spirit of my post, rather than nitpick any apparent inaccuracy.

[Don Hudson]

GTFA:

Re "How about remodelled in a significant way so as to reflect the contemporary labour/corporate relationships in aviation? "

I need help here...What does that "contemporary relationship" look like? To me, its an awful mess, and I have written about it at length both here and on other forums. It has a history which is not at all unique to our industry. How will we know what is "significant" and what is merely tinkering then, in any change to that relationship? What direction would you take it and by what means? It is frankly an enormous undertaking of near-revolutionary proportions for such a suggestion goes to the heart of the question. For that to be meaningful and not merely an academic paper on some university "expert's" desk, some very hard and difficult work has to be undertaken. How do you propose that that is to be done?

I am not trying to box you in with debate or rhetoric here, as I deeply believe that this relationship must change; - Always have. But it is important to comprehend the "river" in which one is moving along with the intertia behind its direction, before one can begin to contemplate change.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be begun. I have done so in my own ways in my own areas of aviation interest and have also been part of the political process (CALPA and ACPA) which spoke to both moderation and change. I would like to observe that it is anything but easy.

Re "I am just wondering, when the last contract was negotiated did ACPA explore the ability of the company to accommodate such demands? I think that as employees of a company you are without question a stakeholder in the success or failure of the organization and should exercise due diligence on any matter that will effect the bottom line."

The "success" or "failure" of any company is not solidly linked hard and fast in a direct way to employee well-fare within the company. There is no line over which employee demands might cross which threatens the existence of a company and if there is, that company is in seriously bad shape.

So, is it up to the employees to tailor their negotiations with their company in mind? If so, we may as well give in immediately, for the "negotiation" is over.

Now, if the notion of ensuring the company has the ability to pay is somewhere in between these two, then yes, both CALPA and later, ACPA have done (and was proceeding to do) a due diligence on Air Canada, up until this last time wherein events overtook that process. Simply put, the initial demands upon the pilots and what resulted in the final outcome differ because it became swiftly apparent that many aspects of the original demands were entirely unrealistic and could not withstand scrutiny, the details of which I will not go into publicly with anonymous posters. But it changed and the company and the Monitor accepted the final outcome.

The process is not black and white. There is rarely "success" or "failure" of the entire enterprise involved in such negotiations. It is more subtle, with much more flexibility than that.

Re "Therefore what we are looking for is a sustainable symbiosis between all stakeholders."

Couldn't agree more. That's what this is all about. But "sustainable" is a big, encompassing term, isn't it, and so is "symbiosis", (lovely word !). But the devil is always in the "how-to". And both the actions/accomplishments and their measurement-of-success are very difficult and appear differently depending upon one's position within the enterprise. In short, specifics and a sense that its always a work-in-progress with both short-term and long-term goals is what's needed. And putting that into good contract language that both the employees and management can live with is exceedingly difficult. Forgive me if I have perceived incorrectly, but I get the feeling that you haven't seen a lot of this kind of work and how it all comes about.

Re my comment, "I think you will also find that not one employee would deny that their company, and themselves need to be efficient."

. . . and your response, "I don’t agree. I have observed all too many “freeloaders” in and around the aviation industry."

Perhaps its different with pilots, but I can't think of a single example. One can't "free-load" and keep the career going. It just doesn't work that way. I have no experience with other groups and can't comment, but it would be an irrational, short-sighted employee who did not connect their own well-fare with their company's and at least observe where things might be made more efficiently. Still in all this, I do recognize that we're dealing with people here and not automatons...some folks put in more effort and thought than others. Fortunately such variations can be accomodated within a successful enterprise. In the end, we all have to sleep soundly and look in the mirror in the morning.

Re "I believe that this is where strong and capable management is required. There needs to be a balance of all costs and a strong resistance to Overpaying for any level of service while ensuring a productive workforce willing to make the necessary commitment to corporate success."

Well, I can't disagree, partly because its so general as to be a motherhood issue or worse, a Mission Statement, and partly because the definition is a tautology: it is self-evidently true because its opposite, in this context, leads to failure.

How to get there is the path which is so elusive, even between people of good will and good intentions. Why? Well, let us ask what is meant by "strong and capable management". Does that mean a management which creates and "strongly" enforces rules for its employees so that deviations are not tolerated (and therefore the enterprise is "efficient")? I know this is a black-and-white statement because things just aren't like that, but the extreme can have utility in illuminating meaning. In my opinion and from my experience, within both the employee and management ranks we have people who fit that definition and fulfill those requirements admirably.

Is what you are driving at perhaps more to do with having a vision of one's organization under which both management and employees can proceed with anticipation and enthusiasm? . . . A "Unity" of purpose far and above a psychobabble approach to mere mission statements? In truth, a real sense of what we are about?

I don't know whether that's what you mean. But I know people work better when they have a vision of "the whole" and their part in it. Most people just want to belong, and they want to be successful both for themselves and for their company. They don't want the moon, they want to be fairly treated and respected not for some airy, new-age reason but simpy for their capabilities as a trained and dedicated employee.

Perhaps that is difficult to achieve right now with so much change? I know that even the very finest of communicators who has that kind of visionary approach has an exeedingly difficult time actually conveying a vision of unity of purpose, partly because, like a badly-tuned radio, there is a lot of background noise in competition with such communications.

Re your comment re ACPA etc, "I think that the current situation at AC is partly a product of an inefficient and ineffective workforce."

Again, who can disagree with this? But that's not enough to go on. I can point to sufficient examples of both your points to argue very effectively in either direction. If you're going to take shots at AC's problems, then the debate has to have more substance than just a statement that AC's problems are a result of an "inefficient/ineffective workforce", the implication of which is "that workforce had better get more effective and efficient or else we're all in trouble." It is vastly more complex than that in such an enterprise and while you won't find me arguing that there aren't many, many areas where improvement is possible, you will also find me arguing that many, many actions and contributions are done very well, although quietly...

Re "So far all I have seen from ACPA is monetary consideration. Will there be significant changes to your CA to reflect a “New Model” for this airline?"

What is a "New Model"?

Does it mean "cheaper"? Does it mean "more efficient", (as per your earlier points)? Does it mean employees must continue to "hand over" wages and benefits until the corporation is making a profit again, (and after that, what?)? Does the "new model" mean that passengers can now pay WallMart fares to fly safely and efficiently from Vancouver to Toronto etc? Does the new model mean "Westjet"? Does it mean flying only one type of aircraft and staying within a niche market? Does it mean flying knees-around-your-ears charters overseas?

Air Canada is not an "HMY", a "Westjet", nor is it a "Southwest", (the most heavily unionized airline in the US, with the highest-paid 737 pilots in the industry). We are a full-service international and domestic airline (and by public demand, moving towards less service). I truthfully do not know what is meant or envisioned by the term "New Model" except that in negotiations with employees after April 1rst, it served as the negotiation boogey-man, period. Truly, I think the term means far more positive things for our airline than this and when we emerge from CCAA, we will be giving our competitor in the west a solid run for his money. That is, if the government will actually let us, in this deregulated-for-everyone-except-Air-Canada business environment in Canada...

kind regards GTFA,

Don

[Guest V1V2Vgo]

Same rules...adopt CALPA'S constitution? Well, now with your own sandbox, ACPA does whatever they want.