The AC Pilots Private Forum is temporarily unavailable.

[Lost in Saigon]

I just spoke to Paul Howard (Communications Director for ACPA), he says that the "acpilotsforum.ca" shutdown has nothing to do with ACPA.

He also added that ACPA will be issuing the weekly newsletter today (one day early) because of a recent TA development. The newsletter will also confirm that ACPA had nothing to do with the "acpilotsforum.ca" being offline.

[Rockie]

The newsletter will also confirm that ACPA had nothing to do with the "acpilotsforum.ca" being offline.

That may in fact be true, but the union cannot be expected to say anything else no matter what. Admitting control over that site would leave ACPA open for all kinds of litigation considering the vile personal attacks on members that are permitted there.

[Lost in Saigon]

I just spoke with a YYZ vice-chair.

No "gag order". No recommendation either way. We'll see it tomorrow. All of it.

Call or email your reps. Educate yourselves.

The MEC had nothing to do with the forum being down.

If the MEC can not approve the TA, it MUST go back to the negotiations table. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

[duckedy]

and ACPA would tell you otherwise??

[morefun]

Let’s get real , the fact they are putting it to a membership vote means they like it and are in fact recommending acceptance.

[yycflyguy]

I just spoke with a YYZ vice-chair.

No "gag order". No recommendation either way. We'll see it tomorrow. All of it.

Call or email your reps. Educate yourselves.

The MEC had nothing to do with the forum being down.

If the MEC can not approve the TA, it MUST go back to the negotiations table. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

Not true. The MEC can put it to a membership ratification vote with a recommendation, no recommendation or a neutral position. My guess is that the MEC vote was split 3-3 (will the voting become transparent?) hence the neutral position. Pretty scary that it has progressed to this point.

[Fanblade]

Respectfully I think you guys are reading too much into this decision not to recommend the TA one way or the other.

The fact that it is going to the membership means a majority on the MEC voted for it.

The fact that there is not a recommendation one way or the other from the MEC, only means we get to decide. I am told there has been criticism of ACPA in the past for what was felt as a sales job during ratifications? So are we getting what you asked for?

The fact that the MEC will remain silent on recommending the TA, or not, does not preclude individual MEC members from expressing their personal opinion. It is just the MEC's collective voice that is silent. Freeing up individual members to speak their mind.

So whats the problem? Seems reasonable to me. Sounds like we are going to get the good, bad and ugly.

[machaltstar]

wrt the unofficial ACPA forum being shut down, i've always beens a skeptic as to who was running it. anyone putting there name up to run private forum shouldn't be afraid to do so. Who was stopping anyone from obtaining a company seniority list with our names and employee numbers on it and creating there own private forum? who truly know who was running that forum? it could have been management themselves, or maybe someone on the negots committee, or how about someone on the "yes" side of the house? I don't believe the MEC had anything to do with it, but someone certainly did. I'm hoping that that alone will get 1100 plus guaranteed no votes on principle alone. I've spoken with my LEC reps, and this whole thing stinks.

[Brick Head]

Does anybody know the name of a good webmaster?

machaltstar,

You of course have a point. However the original forum was closed over litigation directed at ACPA by the fly past 60 camp. It included naming the individual forum moderators.

With that in mind only an idiot would create a new forum without masking their identity. It would make you a target.

Now look at vic777's post. He might be genuinely interested for the purpose of joining. He may also have an ulterior motive behind the question.

As long as the fly past 60 stuff is still going on? I doubt we will see an official ACPA forum. It will be an unknown moderator or none at all.

[Rockie]

As long as the fly past 60 stuff is still going on? I doubt we will see an official ACPA forum.

If ACPA did its job and moderated the forum properly they would have nothing to worry about wrt litigation. Closing it was a copout that also served to further isolate themselves from the membership and avoid uncomfortable questions.

[Disco Stu]

Let’s get real , the fact they are putting it to a membership vote means they like it and are in fact recommending acceptance.

Not true. Make a phone call or send an email.

[Disco Stu]

My guess is that the MEC vote was split 3-3 (will the voting become transparent?) hence the neutral position.

Try unanimous.

[Disco Stu]

I just spoke with a YYZ vice-chair.

No "gag order". No recommendation either way. We'll see it tomorrow. All of it.

Call or email your reps. Educate yourselves.

The MEC had nothing to do with the forum being down.

If the MEC can not approve the TA, it MUST go back to the negotiations table. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

They can send it to the membership for ratification with no recommendation attached.

[Stu Pidasso]

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect the vote was split and the Chair did not want to be the deciding vote. The compromise was to put it in the hands of the membership.

On the forum, there is no one that could moderated this group, it is beyond hope. Some very good people have tried.

[Disco Stu]

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect the vote was split and the Chair did not want to be the deciding vote.

You are wrong.

Guys, how about instead of spreading bullshit rumours, you make a phone call or send an email and get the FACTS.

It isn't hard. I emailed all the YYZ LEC members this morning, and withing 2 hours had 3 email replies and one phone call reply.

[hypoxic]

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect the vote was split and the Chair did not want to be the deciding vote.

You are wrong.

Guys, how about instead of spreading bullshit rumours, you make a phone call or send an email and get the FACTS.

It isn't hard. I emailed all the YYZ LEC members this morning, and withing 2 hours had 3 email replies and one phone call reply.

Can you provide some facts?

[WamBam]

The forum seems to be back up and running. Must have been a temperary glitch.

[Raymond Hall]

However the original forum was closed over litigation directed at ACPA by the fly past 60 camp. It included naming the individual forum moderators.

That is categorically incorrect. Your credibility continues to suffer as you repeatedly publish rumours and misinformation instead of fact, and I for one would truly appreciate you refraining from slanderous statements that have no basis. There was never any litigation "directed at ACPA by the fly past 60 camp" regarding the Forum, and despite previous persistent fears of previous moderators that somehow morphed into allegations that individual moderators were personally the subject of the litigation (that did not exist), that is utter B.S. So how about sticking to flying airplanes, sir. I hope that you can do a better job of doing that, than you do of being a journalist.

[Sage]

I flew with a MEC member on the day that the forum got shutdown. It wasn't litigation but rH's accusation that led to an investigation carried out on moderators and MEC members. Why don't you just say it ray instead of spooling up your threat machine again. You got the forum shutdown.

[Stu Pidasso]

There must be a whole lot more to the story - Disco. It is highly unusual for a T/A to go to the membership, without the blessing of the MEC!

So, you are telling us that the MEC voted unanimously to "send it to the membership" without giving it the support of the MEC.

Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying into that one.

[Sage]

double post

[ROCK]

The AC private forum is now up and running again.

[Brick Head]

However the original forum was closed over litigation directed at ACPA by the fly past 60 camp. It included naming the individual forum moderators.

That is categorically incorrect. Your credibility continues to suffer as you repeatedly publish rumours and misinformation instead of fact, and I for one would truly appreciate you refraining from slanderous statements that have no basis. There was never any litigation "directed at ACPA by the fly past 60 camp" regarding the Forum, and despite previous persistent fears of previous moderators that somehow morphed into allegations that individual moderators were personally the subject of the litigation (that did not exist), that is utter B.S. So how about sticking to flying airplanes, sir. I hope that you can do a better job of doing that, than you do of being a journalist.

Raymond,

Sorry you are correct. Asking the RCMP to start a criminal investigation? Better? I am sure the difference makes webmasters very comfortable.

Your post leaves the impression that at no time did you take action that resulted in the threat of legal consequences for ACPA, and some of its members, over forum content and or access. Would you say that is an accurate, or inaccurate portrayal, of what really transpired and why the forum was closed?

and I for one would truly appreciate you refraining from slanderous statements that have no basis

How can you expect anyone to be comfortable debating this subject when you take an error, and respond with a threat?

[yycflyguy]

The real question is; Will he vote Conservative in this Federal election?

[Sage]

The real question is; Will he vote Conservative in this Federal election?