ACPA Implodes !

[Rockie]

I see a membership that's finally waking up to the representation they have been receiving, but I find it strange that so many still don't realize that this TA is not the only area where the union has been working contrary to the best interests of the membership.

Remember the guys everybody is lining up to sign petitions against calling for their removal because they sold us out? Yeah, well, those are the very same guys who have been directing ACPA's age 60 strategy and keeping the membership completely in the dark with regards to facts in that issue.

Wake up Tony.

[What's Missing]

Please let Tony sleep........These are important issues........Cooler heads must prevail.

Bill

[Morry Bund]

Just out:

"Fellow Pilots: Effective immediately, I am stepping back from my responsibilities as MEC Chair, pending the outcome of the membership vote on the recall petition. First Officer Brad Kenyon has agreed to serve as Acting MEC Chair.
Captain Bruce White, MEC Chair"

Bye bye...

[the original tony]

What's missing???? Nothing for a first post as far as I can see.
Cooler heads will prevail. As per usual Air Canada culture.
Many from the bottom will loose jobs, guys here since I was born will be back
to take more, and when we do come back we will have a GREAT contract to show us the
wages we are coming back to.
And after all this you and I are to feel bad for those "forced" out.
This truly is a great country. Give to the generation that placed us in the position we are in
and smile about it.
Yup sounds like discrimination to me, only making 260 an hour to fly.
And they live to tell their story, true bravery.
The senior working at the corner store risking a stabbing and robbery to pay bills, he is brave.
You and yours, money and nothing but.

[Rockie]

Hey Tony, your engine's on fire and you are in a high "G" spiral dive headed for the dirt. Are you going to deal with it or just complain about how unfair it is?

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Latest word from the President:

"Yesterday and today the MEC met in YYZ to discuss members' concerns as raised during the road shows of last week and through numerous emails and telephone calls received in the interim. After lengthy deliberation, the MEC resolved to send the Negotiating Committee back to discuss ways in which your concerns might be addressed. Please exercise patience as the committee undertakes its direction from the MEC."

Sent them back? Sent them back where? Discuss ways in which our concerns may be addressed? How about coming up with an agreement that is based on the input from the members?

Directions from the MEC? Does that include directions from the MEC members who are next in line on the petition for recall? Two of YYZ members have already accumulted over 600 signatures on the recall petition. Are they still giving "direction" to the Negotiating Committee, before they get their exit notice by reason of the directions that they have already given the Negotiation Committee?

[rudder]

http://...blogspot.com/2010/10/pil ... ow-we.html

[jjj]

...."I'm allergic to kool aid..."

Funny.

[Rockie]

Those parodies are absolutely hilarious.

Oh wait...those aren't parodies.

They're documentaries.

[rudder]

Latest word from the President:

"Yesterday and today the MEC met in YYZ to discuss members' concerns as raised during the road shows of last week and through numerous emails and telephone calls received in the interim. After lengthy deliberation, the MEC resolved to send the Negotiating Committee back to discuss ways in which your concerns might be addressed. Please exercise patience as the committee undertakes its direction from the MEC."

Sent them back? Sent them back where? Discuss ways in which our concerns may be addressed? How about coming up with an agreement that is based on the input from the members?

Directions from the MEC? Does that include directions from the MEC members who are next in line on the petition for recall? Two of YYZ members have already accumulted over 600 signatures on the recall petition. Are they still giving "direction" to the Negotiating Committee, before they get their exit notice by reason of the directions that they have already given the Negotiation Committee?

The MEC is trying to save the TA by adding just enough (or removing just enough) to get 51% support while in the meantime the MEC Chair is hoping that only 1436 pilots will bother to vote in favour of the membership ballot to recall him which will allow him to continue even though 1/2 of the pilots he purportedly represents do not support him. And you can bet that the MEC will unveil a slightly improved TA within days in hopes of influencing the recall vote result.

This is a case study in representative dysfunction (and abuse). It is clear that ACPA sets a very low bar for what it defines as a successful ratification.

How motivated do you think that CR is going to be to improve the deal substantially when he sees this opportunity to only have to appease 51% of the pilots (and 6 members of the MEC)? He has already put the deal in his pocket because this MEC is sending all of the wrong messages.

The fact that the MEC and NC labelled the previous package as a "TA" will come back to haunt everybody. They have legitimised all of the company's outrageous proposals.

[LeadingEdge]

What most of you retired guys fail to understand is that if this agreement passes, you will not want to come back. You will be placed on the 767 and then transferred to low cost, whether you like it or not. The position that you had is being eliminated...

ACPA is not imploding, and ALPA is not going to happen. ACPA is returning to its roots, you remember those days don't you?? You should be supporting the grass roots.

[Localizer]

Hmmm ... returning to its roots? Isn't that CALPA?

[yycflyguy]

Hmmm ... returning to its roots? Isn't that CALPA?

Ha!.... you sh!tdisturber! Funny guy

[Rockie]

Hmmm ... returning to its roots? Isn't that CALPA?

Can't happen fast enough for me.

[rudder]

The AC pilots were founding members of CALPA which was one of 3 pilot unions that originally formed IFALPA. Now, ALPA(C) has replaced CALPA and for AC pilots attendance at IFALPA functions comes with the label 'guest' not 'member'.

Fortunately, there are many other Canadian pilots that are stepping up to the plate at IFALPA and they are apparently making significant contributions on behalf of all professional pilots:

Other ALPA leaders elected to IFALPA offices at this year’s conference include Capt. Rod Lypchuk (Jazz), who is the new executive vice president, administration and finance. Capt. Ray Gelinas (Jazz) was reelected regional vice president, Canada/Arctic; Capt. Craig Hall (Jazz) was elected chair of the IFALPA Security Committee; and Capt. Mark Seal (United) was reelected regional vice president, North Atlantic. In addition, Capt. Bob Perkins (Jazz) was reelected committee chairman for the IFALPA Aerodrome and Ground Environment Committee.

IFALPA represents more than 100,000 pilots in more than 100 countries worldwide, and serves as the global voice of airline pilots, promoting the highest level of aviation safety and security worldwide. The Federation provides services, support, and representation to all of its member associations. For more information, visit the Federation website at http://www.ifalpa.org.

http://www.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/PressR ... _11.08.htm

[Rockie]

Fortunately, there are many other Canadian pilots that are stepping up to the plate at IFALPA and they are apparently making significant contributions on behalf of all professional pilots:

Yes, but ACPA is making significant contributions on behalf of Air Canada pilots

[accumulous]

What most of you retired guys fail to understand is that if this agreement passes, you will not want to come back. You will be placed on the 767 and then transferred to low cost, whether you like it or not. The position that you had is being eliminated...

Staring down from ACPA’s floundering Hindenburg at the charred remains of what was once a Collective Agreement smeared all over the Aviation Landscape brings Attila the Hun and his Scorched Earth Policy to mind.

The year was circa 450 AD and it just shows you how far into the past ACPA is committed, to obliterate its own future.

The current TA will set North American collective bargaining back past the first days of fabric and wing warping.

Would somebody please cover the Wright museum in Ohio with a camouflage tarp until the Blimp passes out of range.

This nastiest of one-act plays stages itself and its mass extermination petitions, screaming, yelling, resigning, and other hoopla, front and center in the newsletters of every Airline on the planet, under the scrutiny of blinding spotlights.

In stark contrast to the cool sanity of those Aviators, a sordid legacy of Completely Scrambled Ineptitude will live on forever as clear testament to how one Airfield transformed itself into a Certified Nuthouse.

What most of you retired guys fail to understand is that if this agreement passes, you will not want to come back.

Are you suggesting that a gang of ne’er-do-wells has set about to burn their own Hangar to the ground in an effort to thwart the incumbency of their own senior pilots, and ultimately, themselves?

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

What most of you retired guys fail to understand is that if this agreement passes, you will not want to come back. You will be placed on the 767 and then transferred to low cost, whether you like it or not. The position that you had is being eliminated...

I would be willing to bet a lot that the conclusions drawn from flawed assumptions placed on top of irreverent speculation do not weigh heavily on the minds who are entitled to return to employment, post age 60.

[Fanblade]

I would be willing to bet a lot that the conclusions drawn from flawed assumptions placed on top of irreverent speculation do not weigh heavily on the minds who are entitled to return to employment, post age 60.

The equipment and grouping isn't the half of it. All pensions become single life 5 if this TA gets ratified. What does that mean? If you retire after ratification and you pass away? Your wife will get your full pension until you would have been 65. Then nothing. Don't worry though you can still get the plan you have. Joint survivor 50% or 60%. You just have to take pension benefit cut to get it. Depending on the deficit of the pension those reductions could exceed 20%.

Ya sure you would want to gamble with the pension benefit you have, by choosing a retirement date beyond the TA?

[Rockie]

Not even ACPA would be stupid enough to poison the well just to keep the guys that have already retired from coming back.

Would they?

[Fanblade]

Not even ACPA would be stupid enough to poison the well just to keep the guys that have already retired from coming back.

Would they?

Rockie,

It isn't about you.

It is clear that if we say no to AC and slam the door on pension change, the gov't will kick the door down for them.

Flarhety told the AC unions in 2009. Your pensions are too rich for the sector you operate in. He is not going to help protect them. Quite the contrary. He is going to protect the national airline from a cost it can not sustain.

It isn't about you. It isn't about you..............

The pension reductions to acquire a joint service 50% pension will vary depending on deficit. Over 20% would be the max hit assuming someone chose JS60% and the pension adjustments in 2014/2017 were max.

Just not sure why anyone that is already out the door, with the current pension, would want to take the risk.

[Rockie]

Not even ACPA would be stupid enough to poison the well just to keep the guys that have already retired from coming back.

Would they?

Rockie,
It is clear that if we say no to AC and slam the door on pension change, the gov't will kick the door down for them.

Is it? What else have we done to ensure the health of our pension? Have we looked at increasing our own contributions? Have we looked at eliminating mandatory retirement?

Have we looked at anything else to support our pension, or are we just going to roll over and give it away based on the fear-mongering that you seem to have bought into?

[777longhaul]

For Leading Edge

your post:

What most of you retired guys fail to understand is that if this agreement passes, you will not want to come back. You will be placed on the 767 and then transferred to low cost, whether you like it or not. The position that you had is being eliminated...

ACPA is not imploding, and ALPA is not going to happen. ACPA is returning to its roots, you remember those days don't you?? You should be supporting the grass roots

=============================================================================================

Please, think about your post. Then, spend a few minutes looking at the HRA under the Federal Rules of discrimination.

One of the most important rules, established, and adheared to, set by the Federal Government, sets out the procedures for reinstatement back to an individuals place of original employment. (the place/position/status/pay levels etc., when they were discriminated against.)

Anyone, (a pilot in this case) who is wrongfully terminated due to a proven legal violation as per the HRA, will, be reinstated back to their original position. That is not open to negotiation. IT is the law, and that is what acpa has been keeping from you all along, as well as a box car full of other details.

The HRA carries, a great deal of established, and enforced, legal procedures, like it or not. This a very different from the V/K case, who were reinstated under different rules. This is very different, and has many different laws.

The Pension Issue, from this TA has just cemented more post pending/current, 60 types, into applying, it was a huge eye opener to see what they tried to do in this TA. The no indexing, possible reductions to one's pension in a few years, etc. etc. just to mention a few items, that will cause even more to consider staying past 60.

[Fanblade]

Not even ACPA would be stupid enough to poison the well just to keep the guys that have already retired from coming back.

Would they?

Rockie,
It is clear that if we say no to AC and slam the door on pension change, the gov't will kick the door down for them.

Is it? What else have we done to ensure the health of our pension? Have we looked at increasing our own contributions? Have we looked at eliminating mandatory retirement?

Rockie,

Agreed. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. The gov't is demanding it gets skinned or they will do it for us, using those promises the groups made in 2009 for the club loan.

They are not demanding how it gets skinned.

Kind of illogical that the group would allow their pension benefit to be cut before giving in on the post 60 issue.

[Mechanic787]

Flarhety told the AC unions in 2009. Your pensions are too rich for the sector you operate in. He is not going to help protect them. Quite the contrary. He is going to protect the national airline from a cost it can not sustain.

For the record, I am no politician. But I have met a large number of politicians, including many in the present crop. To an individual, including the present Minister of Finance, none of them speak highly of Air Canada. Although none of them appear the least bit interested in bailing out Air Canada's pension deficits to help any of Air Canada employees, neither are they the least bit interested in getting involved in the pension disputes to take sides on any issue confronting Air Canada, Nortel or any of the others who obviously are not interested in looking after their own pension plan members.

I have spoken with Minister Flaherty, privately, and he has told me, point blank, in no uncertain terms, that Air Canada should not expect to get any bailout on its pension problems from the government. Period. It is up to Air Canada, he says, to manage its own pension affairs. No surprise, maybe. But equally, the government is not the least bit interested in protecting "the national airline from a cost that it can not sustain," to use your words. Keep that in mind.

In short, this issue is Air Canada's problem. If it is Air Canada's problem, it is therefore your problem. You should therefore treat it as such. For what it is worth...