ALPA Petition

[negroni]

So where is this laid out and explained?

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 100318.pdf


Article XIV, section 5.

Article XXII, section 1.

That draft wording is outdated in my understanding because “politics” took over the initiative. Politics - the very reason we left CALPA in 1995.

Here’s an update from 2019 found on the ACPA website if you search “ALPA” (MEC Update #13, May 14, 2019):

“ACPA’s Efforts to Re-engage

Over the past few months, your MEC has reached out multiple times to ALPA Canada and ALPA I, to congratulate the newly elected leaders and to seek to re-engage in unity discussions that would see us continue developing a mutually beneficial relationship.

As part of that process, ACPA hosted representatives of the ALPA Canada Board to meet for a frank and open dialogue just ahead of the April MEC meeting in Montreal. We believe this represented important progress in reinforcing our shared values and ACPA’s belief that pilot unity will benefit all pilots. At that time, the MEC asked what specifically was required to lift the pause in merger discussions, and the ALPA representatives were unable to respond with clarity.

In the days after our April MEC meeting -- after more than two years working in earnest to bring about greater pilot unity, and almost six months since ALPA Canada formally requested a halt to the merger process -- ACPA followed up more formally by letter, again asking ALPA Canada to express the specific substance or structure they require in order to re-engage in our unity process.

ACPA representatives recently attended a series of international pilot conferences in Berlin last month, which provided a further opportunity to engage in face-to-face dialogue with members of the ALPA-I and ALPA-C leadership. We strongly believe that, for unity to work, we must always strive to put the pilot profession ahead of politics.

While your MEC is fully engaged on this issue, we are also mindful of the importance of our preparation for bargaining in the 2020 Reopener and the implementation of regulatory changes. We remain committed to representing you effectively in negotiations with the Company and aim to have in the near term a clearer understanding the best path towards unity on behalf of our members.

Throughout this entire process, your MEC is keenly aware that, even as we consider the issue of pilot unity, our duty of representation is to you, our ACPA members.“

You're funny

[Ratherbe]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

[negroni]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

[Ratherbe]

The question was asked about the relationship between ALPA (C) and ALPA-I and how Air Canada pilots would function within them.

Those constitutional changes are what was agreed to at the time. Yes, the process was put on hold for various reasons (politics, Transat), but there are new representatives at ALPA Canada and on the Board of Directors at ALPA. There is no reason we wouldn’t be offered the same deal this time around. And it will be put to the membership to decide if it’s the right move.

So you admit to spreading false information. Nice.

The discussions between ACPA and ALPA are likely over now. Instead, if the petition is successful, there will be a sales job by the team from the US of A and then a vote. Unless we get a voting seat at the big boys table it’s a hard NO.

[sportingrifle]

At this point it would be very prudent for the Air Canada pilots to very carefully study the events that lead to the exit from CALPA and the subsequent formation of ACPA. Without understanding the history, it wouldn’t be hard to repeat it.

[Ratherbe]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

Sorry the band of brothers expression comes from the CALPA days. It was the misguided belief that pilots looked after each other despite competing interests. AC pilots watched as the Jazz predecessors happily took our flying even during layoffs when mainline pilots were on the street. Then they offered to fly the A319 for Jazz rates, then they flew B757 for Thomas Cook at Jazz rates competing against our mainline vacation flying. Meanwhile, they were suing us for $300 million to solve a problem they created.

We don’t need the Jazz pilots to help us get a contract we deserve. They don’t need us to get the contract they deserve either.

[negroni]

Thanks!

Politics aren’t funny though. Most pilots hate that bs. Just get me a good contract. Enough with the band of brothers crap.

Good luck getting a solid contract WITHOUT the "band of brothers crap." No Cap. (as the kids say)

Sorry the band of brothers expression comes from the CALPA days. It was the misguided belief that pilots looked after each other despite competing interests. AC pilots watched as the Jazz predecessors happily took our flying even during layoffs when mainline pilots were on the street. Then they offered to fly the A319 for Jazz rates, then they flew B757 for Thomas Cook at Jazz rates competing against our mainline vacation flying. Meanwhile, they were suing us for $300 million to solve a problem they created.

We don’t need the Jazz pilots to help us get a contract we deserve. They don’t need us to get the contract they deserve either.

Oh Ok, I mistook that as a slight against trying to build some solidarity amongst the pilot group.

[Dash.Trash]

The question was asked about the relationship between ALPA (C) and ALPA-I and how Air Canada pilots would function within them.

Those constitutional changes are what was agreed to at the time. Yes, the process was put on hold for various reasons (politics, Transat), but there are new representatives at ALPA Canada and on the Board of Directors at ALPA. There is no reason we wouldn’t be offered the same deal this time around. And it will be put to the membership to decide if it’s the right move.

So you admit to spreading false information. Nice.

The discussions between ACPA and ALPA are likely over now. Instead, if the petition is successful, there will be a sales job by the team from the US of A and then a vote. Unless we get a voting seat at the big boys table it’s a hard NO.

No misinformation was spread. The constitutional change is a pretty good idea of what it would likely look like. Once talks restart (and they most definitely will), merger negotiations will take place and the full details will be presented to the membership for them to decide.

And everybody knows that Group A status is a must have item. All I’m saying is it was agreed to in the past, there is no reason to believe they would take that off the table when they know it is essentially our number one go/no-go item for bringing us in.

[Ratherbe]

Nice back pedalling attempt. You provided a misleading answer to an honest question. That says a lot.

I’m pretty sure you know exactly what happened when the merger was put on hold. There were elections within ALPA and ALPAc and the politics changed to the point that the proposed language was off the table.

Now there is a new ALPA President so maybe the politics have changed again. Oh great. We don’t need more politics we need a good contract and solidarity amongst the AC pilots.

[sportingrifle]

So without “spreading mis-information”, what are the implications of “Group A” status? (Not being an ALPA member I am ignorant of their airline “groupings.).” Will Group A status prevent the possibility of all the other ALPA(C) airlines joining together and dictating terms and policies to the detriment of the Air Canada pilots? This was essentially the issue in 1994 with CALPA.

[Dash.Trash]

So without “spreading mis-information”, what are the implications of “Group A” status? (Not being an ALPA member I am ignorant of their airline “groupings.).” Will Group A status prevent the possibility of all the other ALPA(C) airlines joining together and dictating terms and policies to the detriment of the Air Canada pilots? This was essentially the issue in 1994 with CALPA.

Providing the constitutional changes are as they were previously agreed to, Air Canada pilots would be involved in the following ways:

Group A status (4000 members or $10,000,000 in dues). Seat at the big boy table. Whatever you want to call it. You get your own Executive Vice President to further the objectives and policies set by the Association's Board of Directors and Executive Board.

https://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/our-leadership/evp

Canada Board and roll call voting. Our MEC chair would have a seat on the Canada board along side all of the other Canadian carriers. When voting by roll call each MEC chair will one vote for each member they represent ie. Air Canada would have 4000+ votes. This is a significant change from the current “one airline, one vote” system and respects our size and dues contributions we would bring.

Could all the other airlines band together and vote against us on something? It’s possible (I believe all ALPA Canada members is currently around 5500), but the issue being voted on would have to be pretty divisive for such an event to occur.

Overall, the benefits we would be entitled to far outweigh the costs and you can look at the past 20 years history and see that ACPA has not been able to deliver gains for our members and we cannot continue on the current path.

I appreciate you seeking clarity on these issues instead of blindly buying into the fear-mongering that always surfaces with this subject. Once we can get talks restarted, merger negotiations underway and some roadshows, the no-bullshit truth will finally be available so members can decide for themselves on the path forward.

[Dash.Trash]

It’s also worth noting that some of these constitutional changes have already been implemented at the recent Board of Directors meeting a couple weeks ago. Mainly the separation of the ALPA Canada President from the Group C EVP role. It used to be the ALPA Canada president was automatically the Group C EVP, now they are separate roles, giving Canadian carriers a broader voice and dividing the duties of both positions.

https://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/ne ... d-officers

[sportingrifle]

Dash Trash…
Thank you for your informative reply- most helpful.
The potentially divisive issue that I am contemplating, that was an issue with CALPA in 1994, was a merger policy.

Sportingrifle

[Dash.Trash]

Dash Trash…
Thank you for your informative reply- most helpful.
The potentially divisive issue that I am contemplating, that was an issue with CALPA in 1994, was a merger policy.

Sportingrifle

Sure, another common topic. Here is a summary of the current ALPA merger policy:

http://www3.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil ... tabid=3345

The bread and butter:
“The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category.

The new merger policy mandates that merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate.”

Note there is no mention of Date of Hire. And also note that the Air Canada Pilot Seniority List is not date of hire. Finally, if the parties can not agree on a fair and equitable seniority list integration, it goes to arbitration anyway, as would be the case if we were in separate unions. Mergers will happen if the corporation decides it wants to. Which union we belong to will have no factor in their decision. “If we switch to ALPA the company will buy Transat” is one of the oldest fear-mongering tricks in the book, and as illustrated by what happened a few years ago, they will do it anyway if they want to.

If the concern is in regards to a possible re-integration of the Express fleet, just re-read “career expectations, longevity, and status and category.” If the concern is 20 year Jazz pilots magically sliding into 777 captain spots, there is just about zero chance of that happening. Both MECs would be smart enough to know that, as would an arbitrator.

And under the current ownership structure, see the following excerpt from a 2018 ACPA newsletter:

“3.Seniority: No erosion/discussion of seniority rights

Why is this important to ACPA? In Section 45 of ALPA’s administrative manual, an individual MEC could potentially trigger an ALPA review of the operational relationships between two or more ALPA airlines that could, in turn lead to seniority integration.

Resolution: ACPA has received formal confirmation from ALPA that, based on the current ownership structure and other commercial details, the provisions of Section 45 would not be triggered by a merger of ALPA and ACPA. This ensures that any successful ratification of a merger agreement would not create any seniority integration between existing ALPA Air Canada Express pilot groups in Canada and the pilots of Air Canada under ALPA.”

Hope that helps.

[CPT.HarshColdReality]

Dash Trash…
Thank you for your informative reply- most helpful.
The potentially divisive issue that I am contemplating, that was an issue with CALPA in 1994, was a merger policy.

Sportingrifle

If the concern is in regards to a possible re-integration of the Express fleet, just re-read “career expectations, longevity, and status and category.” If the concern is 20 year Jazz pilots magically sliding into 777 captain spots, there is just about zero chance of that happening. Both MECs would be smart enough to know that, as would an arbitrator.

A precedent was set with GGN and SKY DOH merger/integration or whatever you want to call it at Jazz.

Should an integration happen with AC nothing less should be accepted. Mind you their should definitely be fences that would prevent prop only guys to go direct left seat 777.

[hithere]

Dash Trash…
Thank you for your informative reply- most helpful.
The potentially divisive issue that I am contemplating, that was an issue with CALPA in 1994, was a merger policy.

Sportingrifle

If the concern is in regards to a possible re-integration of the Express fleet, just re-read “career expectations, longevity, and status and category.” If the concern is 20 year Jazz pilots magically sliding into 777 captain spots, there is just about zero chance of that happening. Both MECs would be smart enough to know that, as would an arbitrator.

A precedent was set with GGN and SKY DOH merger/integration or whatever you want to call it at Jazz.

Should an integration happen with AC nothing less should be accepted. Mind you their should definitely be fences that would prevent prop only guys to go direct left seat 777.

You are out of your mind. I’m a Jazz pilot and DOH is neither expected by Jazz pilots nor would it be allowed by either the AC pilots or an arbitrator. Furthermore guys that only have turboprop time would not be able to go direct left seat on a wide body for insurance reasons alone. Stop your fear mongering.You sound like an idiot

[Loon-A-Tic]

If any Jazz pilot regardless of their seniority number or previous aircraft type experience thinks they will be offered DOH in an AC/Jazz merger they are ON CRACK.

[hithere]

If any Jazz pilot regardless of their seniority number or previous aircraft type experience thinks they will be offered DOH in an AC/Jazz merger they are ON CRACK.

That is what I’m telling you, they do not expect DOH. There may be a few crazies(like in any operation) that think this but they are outliers so you can all calm down

[canadian_aviator_4]

If any Jazz pilot regardless of their seniority number or previous aircraft type experience thinks they will be offered DOH in an AC/Jazz merger they are ON CRACK.

I’m guessing you are an AC pilot. Overall the industry is unpredictable and anything could happen. Doh could happen, or Jazz could completely eliminate flow. Or something in between. The real thing on crack is Canadian aviation.

[negroni]

If any Jazz pilot regardless of their seniority number or previous aircraft type experience thinks they will be offered DOH in an AC/Jazz merger they are ON CRACK.

I’m guessing you are an AC pilot. Overall the industry is unpredictable and anything could happen. Doh could happen, or Jazz could completely eliminate flow. Or something in between. The real thing on crack is Canadian aviation.

DOH is never going to happen. You really need to stop dreaming.