How to get rid of ACPA?

[hithere]

As previously stated, there is no let on scope

[DBC]

As previously stated, there is no let on scope

Are you arguing that there is no let in Article 1 of the contract? or just in reference to CPA flying?

[PositiveRate27]

BTD et al,
I’m not sure from a legal sense that it really matters whether a contract, provision, or revision is accepted by the MEC iris voted on by the membership. In a legal sense, it is moot. We could have played Rock Paper Scissors, Bocce, held a vote, acclaimed it, or just had our MEC sign it, it doesn’t matter. It won’t matter one iota to an arbitrator In the future. The company will argue that al”the majority of the pilots accept this” and ACPA will argue that “ this was essentially under duress, with looming financial hardship”, I sense the arbitration will lean towards ACPA.
In summation, I believe that the MOA 1 already has JV revisions. This MOA2 merely codifies it. An future arbitration will not view HOW an agreement was reached, nor the acceptance of revisions. We are in unprecedented times.
Cheers

In layman’s terms, we voted in the MEC to negotiate on our behalf. When the MEC signed MOA 1, they signed it on our behalf. The precedent on JV has already been set with MOA 1 as far as an arbitrator would be concerned.

[BTD]

As previously stated, there is no let on scope

That is wrong.

Regardless of your views on down line implications. This is 100% a let on scope. Not all scope. Not the scope we usually think about in terms of CPA carries. But it is a let on article 1. Read 1.02.01.

[hithere]

Ok got it. But is there any reference in the MOS to the grievance that ACPA had supposedly filed over the % of hours that CPA carriers were doing reference to mainline?

[GATRKGA]

So the AC pilots went from the TS acquisition isn’t happening to seeing the writing on the wall if they sign this MOA the TS acquisition being a real threat? Interesting.

Here’s the other thing, you guys don’t sign this MOA and the merged recall list could mean a laid off transat pilot placed in front of a laid off ac pilot gets recalled first.

Lots to think about here for you guys. Good Luck.

[planebored]

If it's voted down they'll get 75 too...

True, but there will be 194 more pilots on the street that otherwise would've been protected with full pay for 6 months.

Might be.

Can't keep laying off and also be ready for a quick recovery.

[DBC]

Ok got it. But is there any reference in the MOS to the grievance that ACPA had supposedly filed over the % of hours that CPA carriers were doing reference to mainline?

No, the CPA scope grievance is separate from the Scope let in MOA 1&2 which is mainly focused on JV flying.

I don't mean this sarcastically or in a derogatory way, but are you a pilot at mainline? I'm not sure why I get surprised when people get the information wrong so often.

[planebored]

Ok got it. But is there any reference in the MOS to the grievance that ACPA had supposedly filed over the % of hours that CPA carriers were doing reference to mainline?

No, the CPA scope grievance is separate from the Scope let in MOA 1&2 which is mainly focused on JV flying.

I don't mean this sarcastically or in a derogatory way, but are you a pilot at mainline? I'm not sure why I get surprised when people get the information wrong so often.

You'd be surprised with how many ML pilots haven't even read the contract. They show up to work, do their job and ignore the rest. Many don't vote either. It's a huge problem.

[rxl]

You'd be surprised with how many ML pilots haven't even read the contract. They show up to work, do their job and ignore the rest. Many don't vote either. It's a huge problem.

Not just a mainline problem by any stretch.

[Tail-Chaser]

If it's voted down they'll get 75 too...

True, but there will be 194 more pilots on the street that otherwise would've been protected with full pay for 6 months.

Might be.

Can't keep laying off and also be ready for a quick recovery.

There isn't going to be a quick recovery. Even if a vaccine came out today that was 100% effective it would take a year or so to distribute if not longer, followed by more time for it to reach the rest of the global community, more time for the government to take down the border restrictions, and even more time for consumer confidence to return. We are going to be stagnant for quite a while. 6 months buys time to get closer and closer to furlough not making financial sense while at least topping up EI earnings. If we vote NO, we'll be turfing out junior members into possibly the worst job market of our life times. We couldn't do anything for the first 600. This is a direct choice on the fate of the 194.

[landshark]

True, but there will be 194 more pilots on the street that otherwise would've been protected with full pay for 6 months.

Might be.

Can't keep laying off and also be ready for a quick recovery.

There isn't going to be a quick recovery. Even if a vaccine came out today that was 100% effective it would take a year or so to distribute if not longer, followed by more time for it to reach the rest of the global community, more time for the government to take down the border restrictions, and even more time for consumer confidence to return. We are going to be stagnant for quite a while. 6 months buys time to get closer and closer to furlough not making financial sense while at least topping up EI earnings. If we vote NO, we'll be turfing out junior members into possibly the worst job market of our life times. We couldn't do anything for the first 600. This is a direct choice on the fate of the 194.

+1

[thrust set]

BTD,

Can you explain how scope will be affected come Oct 01/20 with a positive acceptance of the MOA#2?

Thanks, sometimes people get lost in their emotions and type what they assume might happen at the worst possible time.

TS

[Fanblade]

BTD,

Can you explain how scope will be affected come Oct 01/20 with a positive acceptance of the MOA#2?

Thanks, sometimes people get lost in their emotions and type what they assume might happen at the worst possible time.

TS

ACPA and AC have agreed on terms for suspending parts of Article 1 ( Scope) of the CBA for 6 months.

For some reason agreement was not reached on suspending scope for CPA flying. Not sure why. It's obvious why AC would want to use smaller aircraft in the short term. ACPA could use this desire by AC to protect jobs. In fact this may have happened.

My gut tells me that the optics of ACPA agreeing to CPA flying increased beyond the CBA, while ACPA pilots were being furloughed is a non starter.

[tailgunner]

GATRKGA et al.,
The potential AT merger argument is a red herring. I believe that if one takes a considered look at potential timelines and legalities, one will see that the AT merger is not referenced by the JV article of the MOA2.
Firstly, JV language references agreements with other airlines. If, and perhaps when AC buys AT, JV language no longer applies as AT becomes a wholly owned AC entity.
Secondly, if AC were to enter into a JV with AT, it would take many weeks, and perhaps months for AT to resume any meaningful amount of flying that would affect ACPA members in any meaningful way. AC would have to realize savings in using AT, while at the same time paying their own A320 and A330 crews to stay home. AT has fewer trained and current crews than AC. The spoil up time is not easy for AT.
Thirdly, the timing is not leading to being advantageous to AT JV etc. The EU will deliver their ruling in late December. They may or may not endorse the AC/AT purchase. If given the go ahead, this merger still may not happen. AC is probably looking for a huge discount on their initial offer. I doubt CR pays 720 million. This will take months and months of negotiations after an EU approval. It would probably take until at least March. Would AC enter into a JV that helps a competitor with cash flow if they are looking to step away from the deal, or renegotiate the terms? I’m not sure..
My two cents.
Cheers

[Dockjock]

We made a massive miscalculation in 2014 by signing a 10-yr deal if we never intended to have the stomach to stick to it.

[iflyroads]

GATRKGA et al.,
The potential AT merger argument is a red herring. I believe that if one takes a considered look at potential timelines and legalities, one will see that the AT merger is not referenced by the JV article of the MOA2.
Firstly, JV language references agreements with other airlines. If, and perhaps when AC buys AT, JV language no longer applies as AT becomes a wholly owned AC entity.
Secondly, if AC were to enter into a JV with AT, it would take many weeks, and perhaps months for AT to resume any meaningful amount of flying that would affect ACPA members in any meaningful way. AC would have to realize savings in using AT, while at the same time paying their own A320 and A330 crews to stay home. AT has fewer trained and current crews than AC. The spoil up time is not easy for AT.
Thirdly, the timing is not leading to being advantageous to AT JV etc. The EU will deliver their ruling in late December. They may or may not endorse the AC/AT purchase. If given the go ahead, this merger still may not happen. AC is probably looking for a huge discount on their initial offer. I doubt CR pays 720 million. This will take months and months of negotiations after an EU approval. It would probably take until at least March. Would AC enter into a JV that helps a competitor with cash flow if they are looking to step away from the deal, or renegotiate the terms? I’m not sure..
My two cents.
Cheers

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/n ... 07566.html


I believe joint ventures have to also be approved by the govt. Our current Minister of Transport is a bit busy watching Netflix to take a look at it.

Could be years! (If he keeps his job that long).

[planebored]

Interesting, pilots4change has the support of a few NEM and LEC members running in the coming elections.

If they are advocating and supporting this group and want to things change and are ON THE INSIDE what the @#$! is going on within ACPA that would make them potentially be alienated by the rest of the MEC? Obviously there are issues going on inside ACPA.

All 3 have pretty good reputations, Makes you wonder.

[BTD]

Interesting, pilots4change has the support of a few NEM and LEC members running in the coming elections.

If they are advocating and supporting this group and want to things change and are ON THE INSIDE what the @#$! is going on within ACPA that would make them potentially be alienated by the rest of the MEC? Obviously there are issues going on inside ACPA.

All 3 have pretty good reputations, Makes you wonder.

Careful how you interpret that. I interpret differently.

This year we have the opportunity to bring a unified vision to ACPA’s MEC by endorsing candidates who support the Pilots For Change platform.

They are endorsing these candidates. They don’t say that they those candidates have any association with P4C.

[planebored]

Interesting, pilots4change has the support of a few NEM and LEC members running in the coming elections.

If they are advocating and supporting this group and want to things change and are ON THE INSIDE what the @#$! is going on within ACPA that would make them potentially be alienated by the rest of the MEC? Obviously there are issues going on inside ACPA.

All 3 have pretty good reputations, Makes you wonder.

Careful how you interpret that. I interpret differently.

This year we have the opportunity to bring a unified vision to ACPA’s MEC by endorsing candidates who support the Pilots For Change platform.

They are endorsing these candidates. They don’t say that they those candidates have any association with P4C.

Yeah true. When does the campaign material come out?

I dunno if P4C would post them all on the site though without explicit permission? Seems ballsy unless they are all on board.

Maybe they were the ones who started it all to begin with? Stayed silent till now? We still don't really know who the real brainchildren are.