You are beyond delusional if you think you have a hope in hell of winning this grievance. You are still staffed as if those airplanes are actually flying, meaning the spirit of scope agreement is being complied to. The only thing you stand to gain is them turning around and running downbid to staff the airline as it should, which will mean a lot more ACPA pilots on the street. But given ACPAs history of cutting off its own nose, this wouldn't surprise me either.Sharklasers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:52 pmI hope you drive that truck better than you lawyer. I never said I am out for blood, I was merely explaining the basis for the grievance. But our scope language must be aggressively defended and the ACPA pilots must be made whole, whether that’s through parking CPA fins, financial means or otherwise.mbav8r wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:24 pmI’m not a lawyer but I could drive a truck through that language, AC will argue they are on the operating certificate so they are being operated. I don’t see any minimum hours per fin etc..Sharklasers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:42 pm
Not quite chief.
“1.10.02.01.02 On an exceptional basis, and notwithstanding the Small Jets Settlement
Agreement of Mr. Martin Teplitsky of July 12, 2004, and A1.10.02.01.01,
CPA carriers may operate MJA configured at a maximum of 76 seats and/or
MPA configured at a maximum of 80 seats inclusive of all classes (and no
other MJA or larger jet equipment), at any one time for the purpose of
performing flight operations for or on behalf of Air Canada or its Affiliates
pursuant to a CPA or a codeshare, provided that:
1. AC agrees to continue to operate at mainline and ACrouge combined a
minimum of 86 – and, as of July 1, 2016, 90 – Airbus 319/320/321 aircraft
or B737 Max aircraft or combination thereof, or equivalent NJA aircraft,
including at least 61 NJA at mainline.
2. Regional Replacement Aircraft flown on Regional Routes as defined in
L74.01 are not counted as aircraft in the 90 NJA guarantee in
A1.10.02.01.02.01.”
Given that AC no longer meets the contractual narrow body baseline the CPAs are no longer allowed to operate Q400s or RJ900 at all. 0 MPA/MJA until the baseline is met.
The language is very clear, now it’s just a matter of how an arbitrator rules. So given our illustrious track record in that regard I fully expect to see the 787 in Jazz colours this time next year.
There is also language about 1 MJA per wide body. I guess we’ll see but you know thanks for your support, you have 20% of your pilots on furlough and Jazz has 50% and you want more blood, I guess we’re going back to screwing each other during bad times
First off your confused about 1 MJA to CPA ect, that does not apply in this circumstance (AC does not meet the baseline) it applies to growth of the CPA fleet beyond the minimum. The language is clear, do not meet the baseline, do not pass go, Jazz does not operate MJA or MPA. The history behind the NJA language is rooted in the 2008-2012 threat that AC would become a WJA only operation with the CPAs providing all domestic and regional lift. The baseline is there to protect mainline jobs.
Secondly active aircraft is CLEARLY defined. Air Canada has explicitly said which fins are inactive. The history behind this language was that ACPA was concerned that AC would buy a fleet of clapped out fins in the desert to try exactly what you are suggesting. This language has precedent and is well established.
1.04.04.1
“Active Mainline NJA” excludes (i) the three Jetz-configured aircraft; (ii) any
inactive aircraft, e.g., spare aircraft, aircraft in heavy maintenance, or aircraft
grounded by unforeseen circumstances; and (iii) any new aircraft type in its first
year of service at mainline or any aircraft type in its last year of service.
"ACPA pilots need to be made whole" Jesus... Wake the f$ck up!!!!
This is about industry survival, and you are running around counting the change in the cup holder while the car falls apart around you. Narrow minded, near sighted insanity.