 |
| Rank 3 |
 |
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:25 am
Posts: 120
|
Stu Pidasso wrote: A whole lot - about nothing.
Reminds me of the old joke; "What do you call 50 dead lawyers at the bottom of the Ocean?"
No offence Raymond, you are a Pilot first.
There was previously, no law; now there is, law.
Air Canada will move forward and ACPA will capitulate. Up until now ACPA represented the majority, against a "special interest" group.
Frankly, I think they did an admirable job.
============================================================================
Stu
PLEASE stop referring to the mystical "majority vote" It never happened. The total amount of acpa pilots who responded, were LESS than the majority of the entire pilot group. Many, could not even be bothered to vote. So, this constant reference to the majority, is just recycled acpa spin bs.
If...acpa is so confident now, why dont they take a new IVR vote, and show us the results? Have you even seen the results of the long ago, specially worded IVR vote? If not, go back several pages on this forum, and you will find a good posting on the actual numbers etc. This on going, costly court case, is driven by a select group in acpa. (age/seniority related).
The courts will tell us soon enough, who is right and who is wrong. If acpa is wrong....they are on the hook, for 50% of what ever, the courts decide. acpa signed off on that one..........at AC request.
==============================================================================
Stu, just for you, i went back and found this posting, showing how many of the total pilots, voted on the spring loaded IVR vote, that has never been redone in years and years.
==============================================================================
accumolus wrote:
The above gives you an inkling of just how far out to lunch the splinter group junior to middling seniority types are who continue their quest to capture the seniority list.
In the original bogus ‘Survey’, 1701, by far the majority of pilots, didn’t vote, or were dead set against these ne'er-do-wells' quest for the Holy Grail.
What’s needed is a legal Petition.
1701 pilots are on the verge of picking up the tab for a bunch of misguided types who intend to use each and every pilot’s fiscal resources to move ahead of, or eliminate those very pilots.
1701 pilots really need to retain the services of a lawyer to look at any and all possible ways of not sharing in the ridiculous load of liability that this splinter group of junior rocket scientists is attempting to unleash on the collective whole.
If the Queue Jumping Squadron wants to live in court, and die in court, let them pay the cost of the funeral in court all by themselves.
1701 pilots need to say enough is enough, and cut the little splinter group loose to sink on its own.
If there is a legal way to not have to share in the huge liability of this grossly misguided undertaking, it should be commenced now because there will need to be enough lead time to get it all in place before the sky falls in on these guys.
1701 innocent bystanders do not need to be there to pick up the pieces.
==============================================================================
Stu, another factoid from accumolus:
Quote:
By the way.....still waiting for the acpa official, IVR "majority of the acpa pilots" survey, that shows that the majority of all the pilots (total amount of pilots represented by acpa)wanted to fight this issue in the first place. Wish someone would post the audited results here, so we can all read it.
In absolute terms it amounted to about 40 percent of the membership voting to take this thing to the wire.
Job 1, touted at around 700 pilots over 5 years. That was often quoted as the general target statistic in retirements short term.
Worst case scenario it should have been possible to delete 700 chairs up the ladder before it all hit the fan and the music stopped.
News flash, Parliament just stopped the orchestra about 4-500 seniority numbers short of the Master Plan, and 200 are queued up in court. So that's out the window. Thinking was never our strong suit. Now we'll see how 'accurate' the 'survey' was.
Zero representation, zero foresight, zero planning. The roughly 40 percent in absolute numbers was ‘parlayed’ in the press from an underwhelming minority into an ‘overwhelming majority’, democratically of course, with all the usual semantics about how the vote was representative in traditional terms. You forgot to vote? Tough. It doesn’t matter how you slice it, in absolute numbers, a minority is dictating the fiscal fortune of everybody else, but hey, that's democracy.
The huge glaring error that was made right out of the gate however, was assuming that a vote can replace individual rights, pretty much the cornerstone of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when that error was transmitted through every major news publication in the country on Day 1, it likely caught the notice of a lot of very important people.
Of course what it really did was legitimize the earmarking of carte blanche war cash as required from the other 60 percent who either didn’t vote or who were against it. This thing is potentially not possible on the backs of 40 percent.
If it goes against, which is where the signs are all pointing if you have followed the litigation heading into the big downtown Courtrooms, it could effectively wipe out any percentage increase in any new collective agreement, by the time the Executive calls. The only squabbling over the liability you would assume would come from who is really liable – everybody? The 60 percent who didn’t vote for it? Pilots not yet on the property at the time the scheme was drafted? Returning pilots? To get it spread over 3000 pilots likely seemed do-able at the time until you start reading through the volumes of decisions and where they’ve landed on the ledger. 40 percent gets the other 60 percent to fund it? Softens the blow if you can make it stick. If you can’t, you’ve perhaps got yourself a very large mess. |
|
|
|
AvCanada's Home Page
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
