The Raven wrote:
I'm not sure where any of that stands. I had heard a rumour that the Air Ontario pilots were planning on appealing the decision. Foolhardy in my opinion. They've gone through 5 or 6 law firms and have had numerous courts dismiss their case.
The window for that would have long expired (30 days). If you haven't received notice yet, there won't be an appeal.
Plim Sole wrote:I am not one of the Plaintiffs.
Was just speaking with one of them earlier in the week.
Ok.
It's been 7 months since Madam Pepall rendered her decision. If an appeal is in the works I haven't heard about it. But then again, I'm not one of the representatives.
Yes an appeal was filed on the advice of a retired Supreme Court justice. I believe it was around 4 months ago the appeal was filed. Each member of the plaintiff group has around $25,000 invested. And no I'm not a member of either group.
Appeal eh ? I'm not a defendant nor a plaintiff but I'd think these guys would be more worried about 2 start-ups that are about to enter the market at a cost structure that is alarmingly lower than theirs. Connect the dots from there boys and girls...
Costs for suits such as these are assessed on what is called the partial indemnity scale which is about 50% of the actual costs (called solicitor-client costs). When a party wastes another parties time costs are assessed on the substantial indemnity scale (more than partial indemnity costs, but less than solicitor-client costs). Depending on whether any part offered to settle, and for how much determines the costs. Assuming that ACPA spent as much on legal costs as AO guys did (~$3M) each AO guy would be on the hook for about $15k-$20k (my guess). http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/arch ... tpaper.htm
It's time this thing got put to bed. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to the entire AC and Jazz groups.
Well, I guess they could have just bent over and took it with the crowbar that was offered.
I'm not part of this but some still antagonize by saying things like," Without crunching the numbers too much, just based on my seniority, I would think had they taken BOTL they would be holding left seat 330 now. Maybe even left seat 777."
The above should be used to determine the amount of damages awarded.
anonymity wrote:Well, I guess they could have just bent over and took it with the crowbar that was offered.
I'm not part of this but some still antagonize by saying things like," Without crunching the numbers too much, just based on my seniority, I would think had they taken BOTL they would be holding left seat 330 now. Maybe even left seat 777."
The above should be used to determine the amount of damages awarded.
I was just answering a question someone had asked.
Anyway, the Picher List would never have been implemented anyway. Hollis Harris was the Air Canada CEO at the time. He was not going to allow a merged list.
Here is an excerpt from Madam Pepall's decision.
"Mr. Harris, now retired, was the CEO of Air Canada at the relevant time and was a credible and forceful witness. He also had had considerable experience in the airline business and with mergers. He was unequivocal in his evidence that he had the authority to decide whether to accept the Award and that he would not. 'It would have been a financial disaster for Air Canada,' he said... While it may be that some Air Canada management representatives were prepared to discuss a merged list, this does not supplant Mr. Harris' firm conviction that a merged list was unacceptable. He was the decision maker. 'As he testified, 'We could not operate the mainline carrier with a seniority list that had all the Connector pilots on it.'... I reject the Plaintiffs' contention that Mr. Harris had lack of recall that impeded his ability to provide reliable evidence. He was an impressive witness who made no effort to reconstruct events.... his evidence was not impeached and indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel did not even try to impeach his testimony."
Just an FYI, the ACR pilots hired to AC in 95, are just starting to get spots on the bottom of the 767 Capt's mainline list. I assure you none of them are any where close to being 330/777 Capt's, that's a few years away at best.
Actually, I think you will see on Monday that there are some former Jazz pilots holding or at least very close to the A330. It's because of the restricted bidding rights we now have thanks to the botched negotations of last year.
There are some other comments made in the decision that are interesting when contemplating what happened during ACPA's recent contract arbitration. It clearly states that rank and file union members have the right to dissent. Any effort to silence these members by elected officials could be a breach of duty. Also later in the decision he brings up "negligent misrepresentation" by unions. Imagine if your union leaders knew that their strategy was flawed, had legal advice supporting that, misled the membership, then went ahead with their strategy anyway. Now imagine that the result was the loss of almost $250M during a five year contract.
What would you do if you were those union leaders? Resign, retire, blame Harper, blame management, deny, refuse to conduct a review?
What would you do if you were a disgruntiled union member?
Maybe there is a lot to learn from this decision for all of us, no matter which airline we work for.
LuckyPilot wrote:Just an FYI, the ACR pilots hired to AC in 95, are just starting to get spots on the bottom of the 767 Capt's mainline list. I assure you none of them are any where close to being 330/777 Capt's, that's a few years away at best.
Oops. My bad. My math was a bit off. I suspect the bid results that are due out in the next few days will show that had the Air Ontario guys come across BOTL they would possibly be able to hold bottom of the 330 left seat on this bid. Very close to it anyway.
The defendant class has offered to make no claim for recovery of already incurred legal expenses by ACPA on their behalf provided that the plaintiffs withdraw the appeal motion and put an end to the matter. ALPA will also be required to abandon any claim for cost recovery as a condition of the offer.
Given that this dispute predates the vast majority of the active ACPA membership, it is clear that a deliberate effort by the current ACPA MEC is being made to move on.
rudder wrote:The defendant class has offered to make no claim for recovery of already incurred legal expenses by ACPA on their behalf provided that the plaintiffs withdraw the appeal motion and put an end to the matter. ALPA will also be required to abandon any claim for cost recovery as a condition of the offer.
Given that this dispute predates the vast majority of the active ACPA membership, it is clear that a deliberate effort by the current ACPA MEC is being made to move on.
I agree. This is a magnanimous offer being made by the Air Canada pilots.
The Raven wrote:
I agree. This is a magnanimous offer being made by the Air Canada pilots.
I am not sure that I would use the word 'magnanimous'. I think the better descriptive term would be 'pragmatic'.
As is explained in the newsletter, the potential remains for several more years of litigation at huge expense with a less than certain ability to recover those expenses incurred at other than a significant discount.
I did like the macro view expressed that suggested that resolving this matter removes a barrier to better communication and cooperation between the two larger pilot groups, the majority of whose members have nothing to do with the substance of the litigation itself.
rudder wrote:The defendant class has offered to make no claim for recovery of already incurred legal expenses by ACPA on their behalf provided that the plaintiffs withdraw the appeal motion and put an end to the matter. ALPA will also be required to abandon any claim for cost recovery as a condition of the offer.
Given that this dispute predates the vast majority of the active ACPA membership, it is clear that a deliberate effort by the current ACPA MEC is being made to move on.
As I understand ALPA has already agreed. This is going to go one of two ways. Settled right here right now. Everyone walks away as is.
Or the plaintiffs continue with the appeal and the resulting suit by ACPA for costs likely bankrupt them. There is a group who don't want to settle. If the plaintiffs chose this route and lose it will end ugly.
Fanblade wrote:
As I understand ALPA has already agreed. This is going to go one of two ways. Settled right here right now. Everyone walks away as is.
That would be a welcome development.
Fanblade wrote: the plaintiffs continue with the appeal and the resulting suit by ACPA for costs likely bankrupt them.
The plaintiff class has already pre-funded legal expense incurred to date and a potential costs judgement. Nobody is going bankrupt. But that alone should not be a deterrent to common sense.
rudder wrote:
The plaintiff class has already pre-funded legal expense incurred to date and a potential costs judgement. Nobody is going bankrupt. But that alone should not be a deterrent to common sense.
So why would they settle? They have already chosen to appeal and a potential cost judgement isn't much of a deterrent after all.
I guess this is why ACPA said the offer on the table will be removed if the plaintiffs don't show interest in an expedited manor.
I guess we will just have to see. Doesn't sound very hopeful to me though.
Well the only one who wins here are the lawyers. One AO guy I flew with said they each have well over 20k sunk in to this and that was before this new appeal.
I can't believe ACPA would offer no costs in exchange for no appeal at this stage. That seems like a really good deal for the AO guys. What really belies belief is that the AO would turn that offer down.
This case was clearly successful on its merits and I really see no grounds for an appeal.
