DEFCON Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Greg You asked why I didn’t have an appetite for your proposal? As a result of your high relative seniority you claim to be unaffected by your proposal and only interested in the collective futures of the junior people on both sides. Additionally, you profess a desire to leave the past behind. If and when you signed the “Notarized AC Pilot Solidarity List” etc you made a conscious decision to steal my career. In the post Picher era a vote in favour of any CE that continued to tighten the scope or place any kind of other limitation on the little guy was a vote to take away my career. I must clarify the “post Picher” comment. Although your group voted for scope pre Picher, the acceptance of the clause by then CALPA President “NB” was apparently based on a false or misleading representation put forward by the AC group. I’m now a senior regional type that once worked for an independent company with virtually unlimited growth potential. That potential existed until such time as we were purchased by AC. Please remember, following said purchase it was the much larger AC pilot group that set out to do a number on us, not the other way around. IMO AC’s collective corporate tribulations can in one way or another be traced back to the actions and reactions of your group. Today you suggest we do something different in the best interest of the juniors. Wouldn’t this process of yours turn into something akin to a union raid? How would people organize their politics? How would those regional pilots not included in this “deal” be protected from a negative change in the dynamics of the “little guys” group? Finally, why should anyone, especially the junior regional pilot, believe that the much larger AC pilot group will now choose to honour the spirit and or intent of any such “deal”? IMO, those that don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it! DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeanmermoz Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Where will you be on the AC seniority list if you have joined AC when it only hired pilots from their connectors in 1996 and before, because for you it was a free ride to the mainline... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 There are no "free rides". I had a Picher number. Why would I have caved on the arb award to accept the "terms" of those without honor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Washington Irving Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Didn't you have a number in the late 1970's at mainline before going to Great Lakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Try and put yourself in the position of a guy, generally with a family, who had 4 or 5 or 10 years service with their respective airline, then tell me if you feel any different about the choices some made with the information available at the time? What happened was not right then and it is not right today either. In a funny, sort of round about way, we Air Canada Pilots, especially the ones hired after 1995, may very soon become acutely aware of that, if we haven’t already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 DEFCON, You know that I share many of your feelings with respect to the Mainline Jazz situation. Is there any way, short of DOH that you see as a possibility that would provide at least a platform to begin talking? Remember, there is NO appetite for any ‘old’ ideas, they would receive the same old responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kaytoo Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 lardtunneringeesusarentyouquitethearrigantprick. Free ride my ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThinFin Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Restitution might be one possibility. What that might be is in the hands of the leagle system, unless you have some better ideas, which of course, as we all know has been none existent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 It will take a lot more than any of my ideas, if possible at all. Anyway, I shoulkd know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Hi Defcon I probably have a great deal more sympathy for your position than you think. Your group wasn't treated well. Even though we were forced into, a by then unwanted merger and arbitration, you guys played by the CALPA rules. The reasons behind what we did, in my view are these. Some time earlier we had voted on whether we wanted to merge. We had voted against it. Even though we had voted against it the powers that be in CALPA forced us to go ahead. There was a feeling that we had lost control of our own futures within the union. Then the Picher award came out. A huge majority, including myself, believed that it was unfair to our junior pilots. For example, someone who had been a Capt at the Regional carrier, had gone to the mainline after risking his career by having to jump through all the hoops, could easily have now found himself junior to someone who had been an F/O with him but had stayed at the regional. (I know that we have different views on that.) It left us with a decision to make. Do we leave a union that we aren't happy with anyway, and at the same time protect our junior pilots, or do we go along with CALPA and the Picher award. Personnally I felt that reneging on the award was a crummy thing to do, but in the end it was a matter of choosing which was the most distasteful choice and you know which choice we made. If we were to turn back the clock and if the proposal that I have suggested on this forum had been implemented then, we would be in a far better situation today. We can't turn back the clock. What's done is done. All we can do is to not perpetuate the mistake. If we don't do something like what I'm suggesting now, I believe that at some point in the not very distant future everyone will look back and say if we had only done something in 2003. I do feel badly about what happened and I do thank you for the tone of your post on an issue about which I know that you feel very strongly about. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Hi Defcon I probably have a lot more sympathy for your position than you think. I agree that your group was treated unfairly. You guys played by all the CALPA rules. This is my view of why things happened the way they did. Prior to the arbitration we had held a vote on whether we wished to continue or not. In spite of a no result the CALPA powers that be insisted that the arbitration go ahead. We were left feeling that we had lost control over our futures under CALPA. Then when Picher was issued it was viewed to be unfair to our junior pilots. For example there were cases where a Capt at one of the Regionals, who had put his career on the line by leaving to go to the mainline, who had jumped through all the hoops, would have found himself junior to someone who had been his F/O at the Regional. (I know that you have a different take on that.) So we are left to decide between two negatives. Do we renege on a legally constituted arbitration or do we leave a union which we weren't happy with anyway, and at the same time protect our junior pilots. You know what the result was. I'm truly sorry for the negative affect that decision had on you, but neither of us can rewrite history. You might want to speculate on how the world would have unfolded if at that time we had implemented this dual list proposal that we have been discussing. Both of our groups would be in a much better situation. Isn't it time to bury the hatchet and put an end to this? I know that there have been a lot of hard feelings but if things stay the way we are our junior pilots will go on paying the price for our errors in the past. There has been a proposal put forward that does not have a negative affect on anyone. It would be a good starting place to build on a more harmonious relationship in the future. I appreciate the fact that this is an extremely difficult and emotional issue with you, and I very much appreciate the tone and content of your post. Greg Robinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Well, if we're going to get sentimental... The pilots of AC regional have also done it to themselves in a manner of speaking. There was an opportunity to unite the pilot groups some time ago under mediation process led by Mr. Adams. It was close. Very close. But alas it was undermined by intransigence just as the Picher award was. So who gets sued over that one??? GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fasteddy Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HPT-TOUR Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 No kidding Eddy, I haven`t a clue what he/she`s talkin about, we merged 4 without arbitration, thought I missed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 No, wrong guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Dragon Money talks? Short of that I wouldn't know where to begin...honestly. DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Ya, I was afraid you'd say that. I still hope that one day, some way, it'll bust wide open. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Greg Thanks for your response. “I probably have a great deal more sympathy for your position than you think. Your group wasn't treated well. Even though we were forced into, a by then unwanted merger and arbitration, you guys played by the CALPA rules. The reasons behind what we did, in my view are these. Some time earlier we had voted on whether we wanted to merge. We had voted against it. Even though we had voted against it the powers that be in CALPA forced us to go ahead. There was a feeling that we had lost control of our own futures within the union.” Why were you forced? One union group can’t achieve an objective at the expense of another. When NB signed your CE allowing the original scope language it was only on the basis that the merger continue. The vote to which you refer was an attempt by the AC pilots to escape the merger. With the inclusion of scope into the CE the AC pilots felt they had achieved their personal objective and now sought to escape any consequence that may flow from the previously agreed upon merger process. The regional pilots paid dearly, they paid with their careers! Thanks DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Hi Defcon You know to be honest, from what I can remember, scope didn't play very much into the thinking regarding the vote. When two parties go into a negotiation usually you work at coming to an agreement, and if you can come to a mutually acceptable agreement then it's a done deal. I believe that going into negotiations this is how most of us believed it would go. When it became apparent that we were likely to wind up in binding arbitration I think that is why the feeling about the whole thing changed. However, I can't speak for everyone but that's how I recall it. I agree that the history of this whole thing isn't pretty. Us discussing the past may give each of us some insights into what happened, but it won't make the situation any better. I have made a proposal that I think would give us a good start at normalising our relationship and at the same time benefiting both groups at the expense of neither. In your opinion, what should be done now? Do you think that what I have suggested is worthwhile, can you think of a way to improve on it, do you have another solution entirely or do you believe we should just carry on the battle. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Greg "You know to be honest, from what I can remember, scope didn't play very much into the thinking regarding the vote." I of course wouldn’t know what your group was thinking at the time of the “vote” however, I can say, the vote wasn’t “official” and it didn’t have a large return (30%?). Furthermore, the vote was undertaken after you had achieved scope. Apparently, the AC pilot group seems to have forgotten that scope wouldn’t have become a reality had they not agreed to conclude the merger process which itself was initiated by the AC pilot group. "When two parties go into a negotiation usually you work at coming to an agreement, and if you can come to a mutually acceptable agreement then it's a done deal. I believe that going into negotiations this is how most of us believed it would go. When it became apparent that we were likely to wind up in binding arbitration I think that is why the feeling about the whole thing changed. However, I can't speak for everyone but that's how I recall it." Recollections aside, the CALPA merger process was contained in its entirety within the “good book” which every member had in his possession. We too had hoped the negotiations would produce a result that was acceptable however, it didn’t and we collectively were required to move on to step two etc. "I agree that the history of this whole thing isn't pretty. Us discussing the past may give each of us some insights into what happened, but it won't make the situation any better." I agree and that’s why we now require the services of the Court. "I have made a proposal that I think would give us a good start at normalising our relationship and at the same time benefiting both groups at the expense of neither." How will the hundreds of negatively affected (Picher) regional pilots benefit from this new arrangement? "In your opinion, what should be done now? Do you think that what I have suggested is worthwhile, can you think of a way to improve on it, do you have another solution entirely or do you believe we should just carry on the battle." I believe the past transgressions of your group must be addressed properly before we can collectively move forward. Without a solution to past grievances being in place I’d like to know how anyone could expect our side to enter yet another such arrangement with ACPA? Greg, when we entered merger negotiations with your group way back when the external circumstances were somewhat different than today however, the forces of the day did lead us to the “merger declaration, negotiations, mediation and finally, binding arbitration. Because your group believed they had found a better way to skin the cat they chose to exercise the “might is right” doctrine, abandoned the process and effectively destroyed our careers. Now, what’s to prevent the same from happening again? Personally, once bitten, twice shy. DEFCON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Hi Defcon We negotiated a scope clause into our agreement to attempt to stop the flow of what had been our flying to the regionals. JAZZ has negotiated scope into your contract to stop the Tier 3 carriers from expanding. There is a JAZZ pilot on another thread up above that, due to your low cost structure, suggests that the company do away with Tier 3 and turn it all over to JAZZ. My point in all this is that we are all the same. As individuals we respond in different ways, but when separated off into our separate tribes it is a different story. Hopefully our tribes can bury the hatchet to the degree that we can agree on something that doesn't create losers in either group. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 HI, Just a reminder, The Teir III flying is a classic case of "Contracting Out". These AC flights are being operated by companies outside of the AC family. AC has no financial interest, nor any control over the operation of these airlines. The ALPA/ACPA scenario is clearly a case of "Common employer". The two scope issues cannot be compared. The two groups really should work together on this stuff. GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.