Hopefully the rest of the legitimate pilot organisations who have signed this document realize the dismal history that the Original Air Canada Pilots' have in respecting any signed agreement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Canada Pilots Sign Protocol Agreement in Response to Airlines Joint Venture
Last update: 3:20 p.m. EDT Oct. 7, 2008
TORONTO, ONTARIO, Oct 07, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA), along with its colleagues from Continental, Lufthansa and United, today announces additional measures to protect pilot careers and to benefit from their airlines' proposed joint venture.
The Air Canada pilots together with the Continental and United pilots, represented by ALPA and the Lufthansa pilots, represented by the Vereinigung Cockpit, the German Air Line Pilots Association, on Oct. 3, 2008, entered into a Protocol Agreement in response to the proposed joint venture of their respective airlines. The pilots' leaders' pledge, signed at a recent meeting of the Associations of Star Alliance Pilots (ASAP), outlines their mutual support in dealing with issues and opportunities that could result as their companies seek to pool and share the revenues generated by flying on the North Atlantic. The pilots are hopeful that, if their companies' agreement is approved by regulatory authorities, it will benefit the pilots of all four carriers.
The unions have pledged to closely monitor developments with respect to this matter, and to take all steps necessary to ensure that all of their member pilots participate fully in any rewards gained and that the agreement is not used in a way which unfairly harms the pilots of any of the carriers.
ACPA is the largest professional pilot group in Canada, representing the 3,300 pilots who operate Air Canada's mainline fleet.
Contacts:
Media Contacts:
Air Canada Pilots Association
Captain Andy Wilson
President
(613) 371-7333
Air Canada Pilots Association
Captain Serge Beaulieu
French Language Spokesperson
(514) 236-2243
OAC Pilots Signature??
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Your blue filter is preventing you from seeing that this was undertaken in your best interests as well. Give it a rest.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Still a few bitter guys out there still apparently.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Except that he has made a point with that statement. Seems as though the term 'binding arbitration' only works for some people who expect it to work solely in their favor. I'm not trying to start a war here, but as an outsider that's exactly how it looks to a lot of us.
I probably should just shut my mouth, but oh well, too late.
I probably should just shut my mouth, but oh well, too late.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
There's more history to this than even a lot of folks affected by it understand. And there are obviously many different opinions of what happened, who is right, who is wrong etc. I know I have mine. But adopting a scorched earth policy and undermining worthy initiatives by the union that will help you because you're pissed off at something is just plain childish, selfish and petty. Some people need to start acting like grownups.
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Lets say you and your business partner decide to go separate ways.Four1oh wrote:Except that he has made a point with that statement. Seems as though the term 'binding arbitration' only works for some people who expect it to work solely in their favor. I'm not trying to start a war here, but as an outsider that's exactly how it looks to a lot of us.
You have agreed between the two of you that you would be the one to be bought out. He suggests 5 million. You want 7 million. You can't come to an understanding so you submit the resolution to an arbitrator. You enter binding arbitration under the condition that the arbitrator must come up with a number between 5 and 7 million.
The arbitrator gives you 4 million. What do you do? It was binding. But he didn't follow the conditions of the agreement which were also binding. What do you do?
You would take it to court. What would you do if the court refused to check for compliance by the arbitrator? What would you do on appeal if told. The court has every right to refuse to check for compliance?
Give up? Or find another way to get your missing million?
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Rockie wrote:There's more history to this than even a lot of folks affected by it understand. And there are obviously many different opinions of what happened, who is right, who is wrong etc. I know I have mine. But adopting a scorched earth policy and undermining worthy initiatives by the union that will help you because you're pissed off at something is just plain childish, selfish and petty. Some people need to start acting like grownups.
Is that why this is being actioned by OAC? Again , from an outsider it seems pretty foolish to me, seeing how there are less than 6oo Canadian pilots left. I also thought binding arbitration worked no matter what the outcome to either group:
Question #1:
Do you support the recommendations of the MEC’s Seniority Sub-Committee’s Report calling for the elimination
of the .25 seniority premium afforded the former CAIL pilots and the reinstatement of the original October 17,
2000 merge date to the current seniority list?
For Yes Press (01) For No Press (02)
Question #2:
Do you support the MEC immediately approaching the Company and the CIRB with a view to implementing the
Sub-Committee’s recommendations as soon as possible?
For Yes Press (01) For No Press (02)
Question #3:
If necessary, do you support carrying efforts to implement the Sub-Committee recommendations through to 2009
contract negotiations with the MEC having open-ended discretion to allocate bargaining capital as required to
secure implementation?
For Yes Press (01) For No Press (02)
Question #4:
Do you support efforts to create a merger policy intended to protect the interests of all Air Canada pilots in the
event of any future seniority integration(s)?
For Yes Press (01) For No Press (02)
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
The point has been made, and frankly it's what got me paying attention to the issue, that the current award as it stands is somewhat precedent setting. If and when the day arrives that another merger is in the works this last award will be looked at and possibly used as one of the benchmarks for a new list. If that day arrives the people who are enjoying the benefits of the last award will be the first to condemn a similiar award in the future if they end up on the other side of the coin. Binding arbitration that is done incorrectly should not be allowed to stand, and it seems to me the CIRB has a responsibility to the public, (not to mention their own credibility) to ensure fairness to all in these matters. I am not affected by the outcome one way or the other, but I can see how a narrow set of criteria has dramatically changed a lot of peoples working conditions in a negative way and improved others just as dramatically. A fair merger ideally should not see anyone's situation change. That can't be said here.
But that is not the point I was trying to make when I responded to this thread, and I didn't want to get into this merger business that is hard enough for people affected by it to understand let alone someone who is not. The poster is publicly slandering his own union's trustworthyness in response to an initiative that is neither blue nor red, and is intended to benefit him. That to me as I stated is childish, selfish and petty. Not to mention self-destructive.
But that is not the point I was trying to make when I responded to this thread, and I didn't want to get into this merger business that is hard enough for people affected by it to understand let alone someone who is not. The poster is publicly slandering his own union's trustworthyness in response to an initiative that is neither blue nor red, and is intended to benefit him. That to me as I stated is childish, selfish and petty. Not to mention self-destructive.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
I'm pretty sure both parties agree to deciding who arbitrates, and both sides put their trust in the arbitrator to give a fair decision. And, it's binding, meaning that both parties agree that WHATEVER the arbitrator comes up with is the final decision. Just say'n.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Yes. Trusting that the arbitration is properly executed and fair to all sides. But again that isn't the case here. Even in a court of law if the process is incorrect and the law improperly applied you get a new trial. You would never condone an improper conviction just because the defendent agreed to the process would you?
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Did both sides say the ruling was unfair? Thought so.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Really now, do you expect the party with the windfall gain to cry foul? If both party's to the merger cried foul then you could argue you have the perfect compromise. A perfect compromise is one where neither party particularly likes it, but can live with the outcome. Repeating myself yet again, that didn't happen here did it?
Thought not.
Thought not.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
I wasn't aware that the 'other side' was estatic with the results either. Windfall gain? lol.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
The initiative of the ASAP is to protect the future of our pilot careers and work conditions against furthur degradation ... and when I say our careers, I mean ALL pilots. It is the type of coalition that is sorely needed within the Star Alliance and I hope it will extend to all pilot groups in North America. A national College of Professional Pilots would be a unifying force for ALL pilots (even WJ owners ).
I would like to point out that this is not a Blue vs. Red initiative. This is not something the OAC pilots want. It is something that ACPA is working on and that includes everyone. It needs support and do not allow it to become some sort of post-merger debate.
You may continue beating the merger dead horse now.
).I would like to point out that this is not a Blue vs. Red initiative. This is not something the OAC pilots want. It is something that ACPA is working on and that includes everyone. It needs support and do not allow it to become some sort of post-merger debate.
You may continue beating the merger dead horse now.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
All you have to do is see where the pilots most affected ended up on the new list compared to their old one. Higher or lower? Then you'll see who drove the getaway car.Four1oh wrote:I wasn't aware that the 'other side' was estatic with the results either. Windfall gain? lol.
But yycflyguy is absolutely right which is the point I was trying to make way back at the beginning of this thread. When someone takes a torch to an initiative that will benefit all pilots because of some axe he's grinding then he doesn't belong in the company of grownups.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
How did I take a torch to the agreement.
I stated the obvious, Air Canada Pilot's (pre-merger and OAC post merger) have a dismal record in living by the terms of the agreements which they have signed.
Look at Picher, "Final and Binding". It was only final and binding IF the terms of the merger worked in Air Canada pilot's favour. According to Air Canada Pilot's, they couldn't live with Picher, packed up their toys and formed ACPA.
Keller arbitration, "Final and Binding". Also in the Keller protocol was and agreement that there would be NO RECONSIDERATION, NO RETURN TO THE REGULATORS.
The ink wasn't dry on Keller when the first of many, many trips to every level of appeal was made.
The courts heard ACPA's case, 14 times.
ACPA doesn't have an argument and 14 times ACPA was told to go home and "Get Over It".
If you don't believe me, here is the chronology:
1. ACPA Dismissed
March 27, 2003
Federal Court of Appeal dismisses ACPA's judicial review application of CIRB Decision 183.
2. ACPA Dismissed
June 16, 2003
Arbitrator Brian Keller issues a new seniority integration award. The Keller Award is implemented by Air Canada.
3. ACPA Dismissed
November 20, 2003
The Supreme Court of Canada dismisses ACPA's application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.
4. ACPA Dismissed
January 28, 2004
The CIRB unanimously dismisses ACPA's application to reconsider Keller Award in Decision 263. The CIRB finds that ACPA is bound by the "final and binding" commitment it had made and that the Keller Award properly considered Decision 183.
5. ACPA Dismissed
February 14, 2005
The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismisses ACPA's judicial review application of CIRB Decision 263. The Federal Court of Appeal also finds that ACPA is bound by the "final and binding" commitment and agreed with the CIRB conclusion that "its intervention was neither warranted nor justified".
6. ACPA Dismissed
May 20, 2005
Justice Dawson of the Federal Court Trial Division dismisses ACPA's application to quash the Keller Award on grounds that the arbitrator had violated rules of natural justice. Justice Dawson comments that "there is a public interest in bringing finality to this dispute".
7. ACPA Dismissed
June 16, 2005
CIRB issues Decision 1269 which gives reason for dismissing a further application by ACPA that the CIRB reconsider its own Decision 263. CIRB concurs with its earlier decision and refers to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which had sustained Decision 263. CIRB declares that "no labour relations purpose would be served by adding yet another layer of review".
8. ACPA Dismissed
November 10, 2005
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision upholding CIRB decision 263.
9. ACPA Dismissed
February 15, 2006
The Federal Court of Appeal dismisses ACPA's appeal of the Federal Court Trial Division's decision to dismiss ACPA's application to quash the Keller Award.
10. ACPA Dismissed
March 10, 2006
The Canadian Industrial Relations Board issues Decision 349 denying ACPA and Air Canada's request to consider whether the Teplitsky recommendations would violate the Canada Labour Code. The Board concludes by stating that: "The pilot seniority list, the result of the Keller arbitration process, is now final and binding on ALPA, ACPA and Air Canada. ACPA and Air Canada, acting alone, cannot change that list because some pilots in the bargaining unit are dissatisfied with it. [emphasis added]"
11. ACPA Dismissed
June 29, 2006
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2006 Federal Court of Appeal decision upholding the Federal Court Trial Division's decision, which upheld the Keller award.
12. ACPA Dismissed
September 1, 2006
The CIRB issues Decision 360 which rejects ACPA's application to reconsider Decision 349.
13. ACPA Dismissed
June 19, 2007
The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejects ACPA's judicial review application about CIRB decision 349 and 360.
14. ACPA Dismissed
November 29, 2007
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2006 Federal Court of Appeal decision rejecting Teplitsky and upholding the Keller Award.
It's not difficult to see a pattern here.
Contrary to the continual statements from ACPA, in decision 263 the following was stated:
From decision 263
"[60] There will never be a “perfect” decision or one that will satisfy all. That is the nature of the decision-making
process. While the parties may not have chosen the Board panel, they certainly had the choice of the
independent arbitrators on whom they relied to make a decision on their behalf. A cursory review of the Keller
award shows that the arbitrator considered Decision No. 183 extensively and cited relevant previous
jurisprudence on the principles to be applied. Not only does arbitrator Keller consider the Mitchnick award
itself, he also takes the perspective of subsequent events and their effect on the context of this decision."
Now on the shelf at the ACPA office are as many as 6 seniority wish lists.
1. Air Canada / Nordair
2. Picher
3. List II
4. Mitchnick
5. Teplitsky
6. Lordon (if indeed he even wrote it, no signature)
All the lists are gathering dust, and will continue to gather dust.
I believe that captain Rob Reid probably said it best in the March 10, 2006 bulletin. Have you read it?
I stand by my comment, the Air Canada Pilot's (pre merger) and the OAC (post merger) have a dismal record of adhering to the signed documents.
I stated the obvious, Air Canada Pilot's (pre-merger and OAC post merger) have a dismal record in living by the terms of the agreements which they have signed.
Look at Picher, "Final and Binding". It was only final and binding IF the terms of the merger worked in Air Canada pilot's favour. According to Air Canada Pilot's, they couldn't live with Picher, packed up their toys and formed ACPA.
Keller arbitration, "Final and Binding". Also in the Keller protocol was and agreement that there would be NO RECONSIDERATION, NO RETURN TO THE REGULATORS.
The ink wasn't dry on Keller when the first of many, many trips to every level of appeal was made.
The courts heard ACPA's case, 14 times.
ACPA doesn't have an argument and 14 times ACPA was told to go home and "Get Over It".
If you don't believe me, here is the chronology:
1. ACPA Dismissed
March 27, 2003
Federal Court of Appeal dismisses ACPA's judicial review application of CIRB Decision 183.
2. ACPA Dismissed
June 16, 2003
Arbitrator Brian Keller issues a new seniority integration award. The Keller Award is implemented by Air Canada.
3. ACPA Dismissed
November 20, 2003
The Supreme Court of Canada dismisses ACPA's application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.
4. ACPA Dismissed
January 28, 2004
The CIRB unanimously dismisses ACPA's application to reconsider Keller Award in Decision 263. The CIRB finds that ACPA is bound by the "final and binding" commitment it had made and that the Keller Award properly considered Decision 183.
5. ACPA Dismissed
February 14, 2005
The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismisses ACPA's judicial review application of CIRB Decision 263. The Federal Court of Appeal also finds that ACPA is bound by the "final and binding" commitment and agreed with the CIRB conclusion that "its intervention was neither warranted nor justified".
6. ACPA Dismissed
May 20, 2005
Justice Dawson of the Federal Court Trial Division dismisses ACPA's application to quash the Keller Award on grounds that the arbitrator had violated rules of natural justice. Justice Dawson comments that "there is a public interest in bringing finality to this dispute".
7. ACPA Dismissed
June 16, 2005
CIRB issues Decision 1269 which gives reason for dismissing a further application by ACPA that the CIRB reconsider its own Decision 263. CIRB concurs with its earlier decision and refers to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which had sustained Decision 263. CIRB declares that "no labour relations purpose would be served by adding yet another layer of review".
8. ACPA Dismissed
November 10, 2005
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision upholding CIRB decision 263.
9. ACPA Dismissed
February 15, 2006
The Federal Court of Appeal dismisses ACPA's appeal of the Federal Court Trial Division's decision to dismiss ACPA's application to quash the Keller Award.
10. ACPA Dismissed
March 10, 2006
The Canadian Industrial Relations Board issues Decision 349 denying ACPA and Air Canada's request to consider whether the Teplitsky recommendations would violate the Canada Labour Code. The Board concludes by stating that: "The pilot seniority list, the result of the Keller arbitration process, is now final and binding on ALPA, ACPA and Air Canada. ACPA and Air Canada, acting alone, cannot change that list because some pilots in the bargaining unit are dissatisfied with it. [emphasis added]"
11. ACPA Dismissed
June 29, 2006
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2006 Federal Court of Appeal decision upholding the Federal Court Trial Division's decision, which upheld the Keller award.
12. ACPA Dismissed
September 1, 2006
The CIRB issues Decision 360 which rejects ACPA's application to reconsider Decision 349.
13. ACPA Dismissed
June 19, 2007
The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejects ACPA's judicial review application about CIRB decision 349 and 360.
14. ACPA Dismissed
November 29, 2007
The Supreme Court of Canada denies ACPA's application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2006 Federal Court of Appeal decision rejecting Teplitsky and upholding the Keller Award.
It's not difficult to see a pattern here.
Contrary to the continual statements from ACPA, in decision 263 the following was stated:
From decision 263
"[60] There will never be a “perfect” decision or one that will satisfy all. That is the nature of the decision-making
process. While the parties may not have chosen the Board panel, they certainly had the choice of the
independent arbitrators on whom they relied to make a decision on their behalf. A cursory review of the Keller
award shows that the arbitrator considered Decision No. 183 extensively and cited relevant previous
jurisprudence on the principles to be applied. Not only does arbitrator Keller consider the Mitchnick award
itself, he also takes the perspective of subsequent events and their effect on the context of this decision."
Now on the shelf at the ACPA office are as many as 6 seniority wish lists.
1. Air Canada / Nordair
2. Picher
3. List II
4. Mitchnick
5. Teplitsky
6. Lordon (if indeed he even wrote it, no signature)
All the lists are gathering dust, and will continue to gather dust.
I believe that captain Rob Reid probably said it best in the March 10, 2006 bulletin. Have you read it?
I stand by my comment, the Air Canada Pilot's (pre merger) and the OAC (post merger) have a dismal record of adhering to the signed documents.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
That axe has got to be very heavy. Why don't you put it down long enough to notice when your union is doing something for you.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
ACPA doing something "for" me.
Read the above post by Clint23, the questions from the last IVR vote show what "my" union is trying to do "to" me.
Read the above post by Clint23, the questions from the last IVR vote show what "my" union is trying to do "to" me.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Why are some of you people so bloody myopic? There is plenty the union does that I don't agree with either, but most people are able to see the big picture and realize not all they do is bad. You're certainly welcome to voice your objection to things they do that you disagree with, but try not to let it blind you to things that will help you. And above all, when you publicly discredit the union because you are pissed off at something you are harming yourself along with all of your colleagues. Hardly mature conduct don't you think?FreddyJ wrote:ACPA doing something "for" me.
Read the above post by Clint23, the questions from the last IVR vote show what "my" union is trying to do "to" me.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
I first went through a merger in 1986 and it seems to me that the larger group eventually wins, rightly or wrongly. Here's my forecast:
As there are more retirements the number of OCP will not be sufficient to fund the lawyers and OAC will get the list they want.
On the other hand:
I have no idea how long it will take and so the OAC will, at some point have to ask themselves a question. "I would gladly pay a dollar to gain 1000 numbers but would I gladly pay 1000 dollars to gain one number?" (Leave aside, for a moment, that we are all paragons of moral virtue engaged in a titanic struggle against the forces of darkness.)
By the way, anyone check lately to see if there's anything left in the pension fund? Not that I would want anyone to be distracted from what's really important:-)
As there are more retirements the number of OCP will not be sufficient to fund the lawyers and OAC will get the list they want.
On the other hand:
I have no idea how long it will take and so the OAC will, at some point have to ask themselves a question. "I would gladly pay a dollar to gain 1000 numbers but would I gladly pay 1000 dollars to gain one number?" (Leave aside, for a moment, that we are all paragons of moral virtue engaged in a titanic struggle against the forces of darkness.)
By the way, anyone check lately to see if there's anything left in the pension fund? Not that I would want anyone to be distracted from what's really important:-)
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
It didn't take long for ACPA to grab their "share".
"AC/Swiss Wet Lease YUL/ZRHWe have been informed by the Company that we will commence a wet lease arrangement with Swiss operating an A330 on the YUL/ZRH route commencing October 26, 2008 until December 15, 2008, with a possible extension to December 31, 2008. ACPA has been in contact with officials from Swiss ALPA and have confirmed that they have no issue with this arrangement and that it is in compliance with their Collective Agreement. On the basis of their position, ACPA will accept the arrangement without issue; however, ACPA will reserve the right to take whatever actions deemed necessary, in the future, to ensure that flying distribution among Star Alliance partners is not used to whipsaw pilot groups. "
My ass, ACPA will sell their soul for the minute.
This action displays the current, previous actions are well documented.
Signatures to the "deal" with ACPA, beware.
"AC/Swiss Wet Lease YUL/ZRHWe have been informed by the Company that we will commence a wet lease arrangement with Swiss operating an A330 on the YUL/ZRH route commencing October 26, 2008 until December 15, 2008, with a possible extension to December 31, 2008. ACPA has been in contact with officials from Swiss ALPA and have confirmed that they have no issue with this arrangement and that it is in compliance with their Collective Agreement. On the basis of their position, ACPA will accept the arrangement without issue; however, ACPA will reserve the right to take whatever actions deemed necessary, in the future, to ensure that flying distribution among Star Alliance partners is not used to whipsaw pilot groups. "
My ass, ACPA will sell their soul for the minute.
This action displays the current, previous actions are well documented.
Signatures to the "deal" with ACPA, beware.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, mate?
Dude, it seems to me that you may not be an ACPA member. This is merely an update on how the Scope committee is working together with Star Alliance Members to ensure that there ISN'T any funny business. I am a conspiracy theorist myself but I think you have other voices in your head.
Did you vote for your president yet? I thought not.
Dude, it seems to me that you may not be an ACPA member. This is merely an update on how the Scope committee is working together with Star Alliance Members to ensure that there ISN'T any funny business. I am a conspiracy theorist myself but I think you have other voices in your head.
Did you vote for your president yet? I thought not.
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
What would have happened if magically Swiss was suddenly doing ALL the Canada Switzerland flying?
My guess is that this illustrious union would be crying bloody murder...the ravages will hurt ACPA until eternity.
What's next?
Lufty takes over all of Germany - Canada.
Hey were ACPA , we signed a deal.
The German's will come back, remember YUL - ZUR....piss off,
Thanks ACPA, you are one class act, NOT!
My guess is that this illustrious union would be crying bloody murder...the ravages will hurt ACPA until eternity.
What's next?
Lufty takes over all of Germany - Canada.
Hey were ACPA , we signed a deal.
The German's will come back, remember YUL - ZUR....piss off,
Thanks ACPA, you are one class act, NOT!
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Freddy
You probably had an argument, initially. Now you have just displayed your ignorance to the whole thing. Nobody is going to take an obviously emotionally charged rant, seriously.
You probably had an argument, initially. Now you have just displayed your ignorance to the whole thing. Nobody is going to take an obviously emotionally charged rant, seriously.
Standby for new atis message
-
Hadji Ramjet
- Rank 2
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:14 am
- Location: Back in the great white north
Re: OAC Pilots Signature??
Really, endless? A purported blue guy is bitter because the red guys, eight years on and with rulings from the CIRB and every Federal Court to the contrary, they're still fighting over seniority? Just who are the bitter ones?Still a few bitter guys out there still apparently.
Brickhead, what would you do if the Court upheld the decision by the CIRB to do exactly what YOU demanded, that being that they NOT be allowed to "check for compliance?" What would you do if the Court decided that you actually had to live by the agreement that you did not just make, but demanded in the first place? You might not think that ACPA has to be bound by commitments that they required in the first place, but the CIRB, Federal Court, Federal Appellate Court and Supreme Court of Canada clearly believe that ACPA should be.What would you do if the court refused to check for compliance by the arbitrator? What would you do on appeal if told. The court has every right to refuse to check for compliance?
There's a great idea, ACPA can't find a legal way to violate a commitment that they demanded, time to find an illegal one? Teplitsky was a great plan, the membership votes down a concessionary deal for 777s and 787s and ACPA lets the company implement it anyway, in exchange for... nothing. Good work, what do you think you'll give up next for nothing? Your pension? Expand the Position Group? More code shares?Give up? Or find another way to get your missing million?
Actually Rockie, agreed protocol notwithstanding, both sides in the issue always retained the right to appeal to the Courts; the privative clause that the CIRB operates under stipulates that. OAC lost in Court when they claimed failure of process.Even in a court of law if the process is incorrect and the law improperly applied you get a new trial. You would never condone an improper conviction just because the defendent agreed to the process would you?
Didn't the two panel members appointed by the merger commitees both produce opinions that dissented with the award? Thought so.If both party's to the merger cried foul then you could argue you have the perfect compromise. A perfect compromise is one where neither party particularly likes it, but can live with the outcome. Repeating myself yet again, that didn't happen here did it? Thought not.
So having OAC holding the top jobs (777C and 340/330C) in greater numbers than their proportion would indicate, and holding more of the widebody Captain jobs in the same vein, is indicative of what? Gee, a casual observer might think that a windfall gain would translate to holding a disproportionate number of the top jobs. But that applies to the OAC pilots, so the windfall gain would apply to .... ?All you have to do is see where the pilots most affected ended up on the new list compared to their old one. Higher or lower? Then you'll see who drove the getaway car.
Freddy may have a bitter axe to grind, I can't say and won't judge the individual, but precedence indicates that trusting ACPA with a signed agreement might not be a good idea.
